CompScientist (
talk |
contribs) |
CompScientist (
talk |
contribs) |
||
Line 734: | Line 734: | ||
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:You still question the thousands of journalists that use the term. They have done their research also and came to a conclusion that overwhelmingly sides with an unbiased view. Here is another random article, from the UK: http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/218289/nissan_gtr.html[[User:CompScientist|CompScientist]] ([[User talk:CompScientist|talk]]) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:You still question the thousands of journalists that use the term. It is overwhelming and it is by no means a coincidence. They have done their research also and came to a conclusion that overwhelmingly sides with an unbiased view. Here is another random article, from the UK: http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/218289/nissan_gtr.html[[User:CompScientist|CompScientist]] ([[User talk:CompScientist|talk]]) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== "high performance automobile" == |
== "high performance automobile" == |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nissan GT-R article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
![]() | Automobiles B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
There is really no dispute about whether this is a supercar, and I have yet to see any legitimate source quoted to dispute this. Sepiraph 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate here as to whether or not the GT-R should be referred to as a supercar. Willirennen has pointed to Talk:Supercar saying it would explain. I don't have time to read it all, but I didn't see anything particularly enlightening when skimming over. Personally, I think it's better to rely on the sources for accurate classification rather than leave it to the discretion of editors here. Nissan and Edmunds Inside Line both refer to it as a supercar, so unless there is a reliable source to dispute this, I see no reason to change it. ~ Dusk Knight 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Willirennen ( talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Referred to as a sports car.7:40 SLR McLaren,Class Supercar/grand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren 7:40 Bugatti Veyron,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron 7:42 Ford_GT,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT 7:43 Lamborghini_Murcielago,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Murcielago The class change of GT-R consents if these slow cars also change to the sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 November 2007
Dusk Knight,You forcibly published a suspected slick tire though grounds were thin. I presented as many as four evidences and objected. You are supporting a Anti Insistence. It is the same also of the problem of the class change. My insistence will be able to be overturned? My insistence must be thorough fairness and objectivity. If so, shut up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 December 2007
Everyone please remember that you're arguing over a "classification" which has NO real world impact and no real meaning. Whether we call the car a "sports car" or a "supercar" doesn't cause the car to go any faster.. the classification has no impact on the actual car itself.
On wikipedia, it shouldn't be necessary to use words such as "supercar" to indicate how good a car is. Rather, the facts surrounding the car should paint the picture for the readers. Thus, rather than saying "The GT-R is a supercar by Nissan..." we should be able to say "The GT-R is a car by Nissan which does 0-100 in x seconds, the 1/4 in x seconds, and various lap times in x seconds". This information alone should allow the reader to say either "wow this is GT-R is a supercar!" or "nice sports car".
In the interest of conservatism, I think It'd be best to say, if anything, "the gt-r has often been referred to as a supercar in the media" or something like that. At the end of the day, however, this is barely worth the edit war. Hugzz 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please if you want to restrict me.The edit to lack fairness and objectivity cannot be never missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Class of SLR McLaren is two marks named Supercar/Grand tourer. Two marks are sure not to have the problem by GT-R either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I questions Dusk Knight.Your favorite car has Audi R8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8 Audi R8 is "Class Supercar"??? A supercar is sure not to include such a Audi R8 alone. Why do not you correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Anti GT-R Grim Reaper! Please do not change the thing decided by the decision by majority without permission.If it is dissatisfied, it is necessary to collect more dissenting opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is slower than GT-R, and the cost performance is the lowest excrement car.If the definition of a super-car is put in question, it is necessary to edit it on the page of your favorite car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what all the fuss is about. The car certainly has the performance of a supercar, so why not have it classed just that? Please stay away from philosophical talks about "what constitute a supercar". That have no importance on Wikipedia as it's primary a personal preference issue. SidewalkMCS ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The performance of this car is on per or in most cases, superior. We had ENOUGH talks on "My Supercar Definitions", none of which enlighten anything. So just let the times and numbers speak for themselves. It seems a standard Wikipedia practice why should this article be an exception? SidewalkMCS ( talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nissan gtr is a supercar. CompScientist ( talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The gtr is a supercar and a sportscar no less, a supercar is not a supercar unless it is a sports car. I aggree with those who see the FACTS that back it up as a supercar. Now is the gtr considered an exotic? That surely is up for debate as Nissan has gone global with the car. I have no doubt that the gtr is a supercar. The arguments given above are hilarious. CompScientist ( talk) 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Nissan and reliable sources state the car as a supercar, Yet if someone buys the car they will be dissapointed because its just a sportscar, according to wiki, Nissan is a liar, they have lawyers who lied, they will put their billion dollar company at risk, reputation at risk, lol, this is funny, I do not want to get into an edit war. If an evo is faster than most supercars, it should be considered one, the gtr has redefined the term supercar, an ariel atom does not have all the neccessities of a car to be considered a supercar, it's obvious to see... The consensus here show that we agree on the supercar name and status, yet only two or three who diligently oppose the title supercar. Still, it is a win/win situtation for Nissan, for a car of this "questionable" and inferior status to outperform other "supercars" is an amazing feat. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. using a japanese "wiki" page to verify that this car is not a supercar is just again hilarious. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to a more precise intro including the word supercar. I think the consensus here would agree. Only a few here have POV's and have not provided a reliable source stating that it is "not" a supercar. I agree with Mighty Antar. Unless someone provides strong sources that say without a doubt, and literally, that it is "not" a supercar, we should stick with supercar until then, as provided by Nissan ceo, and respected automobile sources and circles. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Nissan GT-R: Redefining the word Supercar", Crappy catch I know, but it just popped into my mind, after looking at all the silly edit war her. Anyways the creator of the car states clearly that "the GT-R is a completely new kind of a Supercar"(my rough translation from a Japanese mag), it really is a small issue how some desperate some people can be on Wikipedia. Some are so eager to discredit the car while some have gone as far as editing all the Supercar articles on wikipedia to something else! quite hilarious really.
210.159.162.112 (
talk)
16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the change made to the intro by 75.4.7.27 as I don't believe we have reached a consensus. Mighty Antar ( talk) 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Hugzz ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No one has provided a strong source stating that the gtr is NOT a supercar. It is as simple as that. I have changed the intro to supercar, until anyone can provide credible sources, not POV's as to why it is not a supercar. Again, it is as simple as that.
71.156.55.133 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
^^^^No sources, yet only POV's.^^^^ See my point! Let's stick to the subject of this article... The burden is on those who oppose that Nissan is a supercar must provide SOURCES NOT POV's. It is as simple as that, provide your sources, thank you. 71.156.55.133 ( talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
User 71.156.55.133, please stop reverting the article to say that it is a supercar. There is currently no consensus on the issue, and it is clearly a topic of debate. Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus. Where consensus does not apply, the article should not reflect one point of view nor the other (ie the article should not say that it IS a supercar, and the article should not say that it ISN'T a supercar). Where there is not consensus we should take the conservative approach to the issue and outline the relevant facts. Thus, in this situation rather that either saying "the gtr is a supercar" or "the gtr is not a supercar", we should simply say "the gtr is a car that many in the automotive press have called a 'supercar'". Both you and I can agree to this statement; whereas both you and i do NOT agree with the statement that "the gtr is a supercar". [actually, in honesty i do think that it's probably a supercar; i just do not feel that its suitable for wikipedia to define it as such] -- Hugzz ( talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Many do not agree with the sentence "Nissan and the press frequently refer it to a supercar". It is deceiving. This sentence leads the reader to believe that there are some that do not think it is a supercar. BUT more importantly, no one has provided a credible source that it is not a supercar, this leads me to believe that the opposition is only wiki readers and their POV's. not a credible source that states it does not belong in this category. If so, then we must delete the term supercar from EVERY article in wiki, until this is resolved. AGAIN PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE THAT IT IS NOT A SUPERCAR, AND NOT YOUR POV'S. Yet, there is still not a source to back it up in this page so far and only POV's. thank you. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted it back to supercar again. I feel that the sources back it up. Yet the opposition has not provided a credible source and only POV's, again. I believe that this is the consensus, except for only two or three who diligently oppose, with POV's and no sources.... 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We need a source that says clearly and specifically without a doubt that "it is NOT a supercar", not a source that uses the term sportscar, as it does not literally and specifically imply the gtr is Not a supercar and it is a general term used for supercars all the time. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is not one source out there that says the GT-R is "Not" a supercar. Period. Others whom agree it is a supercar have credible sources, albeit primary, credible sources. Those who oppose have not provided one, not one source, not even one, zero sources, stating that the GT-R "not" a supercar. It is as simple as that.
75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet no sources provided again, and trying to put attention elsewhere, this is a question of sources as those are the ones closer to academia and not merely POV's from wiki editors. thank you. This is all about sources from the beginning as it helps reach a consensus that is not biased from the same wiki editors. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source. Thank you. 75.4.7.201 ([[User talk:75.4.7.201|talk]]) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source. Thank you. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that six times you responded without a source, just POV's, whilst ones who concurr it is a supercar have done so. After all this, still no source has been provided, just POV's. I agree with 75.4.7.201 CompScientist ( talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I really believe that a source needs to be provided also. It really says a lot when one hasn't been provided at all!!! Amazing, no sources yet, just repeated POV's. CompScientist ( talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that there in no real debate here, just POV's from diligent biased editors. It is sufficient to keep the term supercar until sources, not POV's show otherwise. CompScientist ( talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, no POV's, just provide a source to support your POV. Amazingly you haven't done so. I can really care less whether you like the gtr or not, lol, just give a credible source to support your POV. thank you! CompScientist ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, and again, no POV's please, there should be sources to back up your claim, you have provided none whatsoever, CompScientist ( talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cover Story: Nissan GT-R This is it, then. No more hype, no more tantalising tales from the Ring. Finally we can judge Nissan’s new supercar from the driver’s seat.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/213486/this_months_evo.html
I don't see why people are getting so worked up about the use of this term, I don't see this attitude regarding someone being called a supermodel, and at least with supercars, there are figures to back up the use of the word. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the term supercar, whether encyclopedic or not, is also POV. To make everything fair, there are sources that say gtr is a supercar, and none whatsoever that say it is not. I hope people see the point and do not get sucked into this argument of whether it's an encyclopedic term because that quite frankly is someone's POV. There are sources that state gtr is a supercar under this supposed subjective term, while on the same playingfield, none that states it is not a supercar under this subjective term. So provide a source, it is as simple as that, no POV's, Thank you. P.S. to say supercar is simply a matter of opinion is your opinion and POV, do not enforce it on others....no redefining vocabulary terms, no brad pitt analogies lol, no marketing scheme analogies lol, no POV's period, just provide a source, we in favor have, why can't you???? 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a warning to Daniel J. Leivick, 1. do not erase my posts on the discussion page. 2. provide a source, not POV's. 3. provide a source, not POV's. 4. provide a source, not POV's. 5. again, do not erase any of my posts or try to block me for an unreasonable POV. thank you 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nissan GT-R outperforms expectations
http://www.caradvice.com.au/9022/nissan-gt-r-outperforms-expectations/
"When Nissan first released the performance figures for their new GT-R, many scoffed at the unbelievably quick times Nissan were toting - 3.5 seconds to 100km/h and an 11.6 second run down the quarter mile off the showroom floor, right.
However as journalists the world over get their hands on the new GT-R, it seems Nissan have actually been conservative with their performance figures, with auto-magazine Edmunds recording a 3.3 second sprint to 100km/h and matching the blisteringly quick 11.6 second quarter mile at 196km/h - and from only two attempts.
This puts the GT-R well into supercar territory, at less than a quarter of the price." Zerosignal84 ( talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/galleries/other/awards07/12/
The GT-R is monstrously good. It locks on like a missile. Seriously, this thing hooks up and accelerates like a Bugatti Veyron. Its body control is breathtaking, too - you just know that this car has been meticulously engineered down to the last tiny grommet. I seriously doubt that there is a car on the planet that can corner faster or more aggressively than this. - Jason Barlow
-- Zerosignal84 ( talk) 10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Again no POV's, just provide a source, thank you. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You have merely provided an ambiguous definition of supercar and using POV's as to the status of the car. Again no POV's, you have not provided a source which states that the GTR is NOT a supercar literally. It is only fair as we in favor have provided many, so that we may compare sources, not POV's or vocabulary definitions. Until then, I am done with this discussion and until there is a credible source(not from a dictionary lol, or brad pitt analogies lol) to say it is not a supercar, I think it is perfectly fine to use the term supercar in the intro. P.S. Even if your definition/source is valid, is isn't a strong one, and I do not see a statement saying "the Nissan GT-R is not a supercar", just your POV again. I hope you see that it is a weak argument on your part. Again show me a credible source. Thank you. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically it comes down to that, everyone here is on a level playingfield, one side of the argument has provided a published article from credible sources, which ""supports their argument"" without a doubt. To debunk this notion the other side doesn't provide any source to ""SUPPORT"" their argument at all, just preaching, euphemisms and their personal POV's and lectures on the english language, That is hilarious. I see no debate here at all, just a deceptive circumstantial counter argument with only POV's to back it up, and even in wiki's case doesn't cut it. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, seriously, this dictionary(2003), gtr 2008. get it? show a credible source, not defintions,thank you, 75.3.245.182 ( talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a non binding straw poll would be helpful in acheiving consensus. We have been debating this for a long time and I think it would be helpful to see where we all stand at this time. As far as I can tell there are two camps (correct me if I am wrong). Those in favor of the current wording(high peformance sports coupe/with mention of supercar label being applied by Nissan and some in the press)and those who would like to use the supercar label. Obviously the results of this poll are not binding and we will still have to work towards a consensus, but I think it would be good to get an idea about which editors come down on which side. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this would make a nice amend that would satisfy both camps. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan, and has been labeled a supercar by Nissan and several automotive magazines. It was released in Japan on December 6, 2007 and will be released internationally in early 2008. | ” |
Well if that is the case I would fully expect that all references to 'Supercar' be removed from Wikipedia, the whole issue simply comes down to that some people do not think this car deserves the title. Be it the badge it wears I don't know, I wonder what would happen if it wore a Porsche badged and was priced at $300k.
The facts are this car: - Is called a supercar be numerous people the automotive press; - It has a never before seen rear mounted transaxle; - Perhaps the most advanced and inteligent AWD system; - Wikipedia will look stupid and wrong with all the press calling this a Supercar and it not. -- 202.44.184.153 ( talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
It is clear that there is no debate here and evidently discussed already by the professionals. The scholars/journalist/graduates in the field have already asked the questions raised in this discussion about using supercar and its definition(I know there has to be at least one english graduate writer/editor in the topgear article lol!!!)yet still concluded with the term supercar as the appropriate classification. It is not up to biased editors to determine what supercar is. Again, it's obvious that this has been disscussed before and determined already by the journalists/historians/scholars and that's why it is used, period. It is funny that the wiki editors opposing using supercar cannot agree on using the term "high performance" also!!!, and still have not provided sources to support their view!!! We leave this up to the professionals, not wiki editors and their humorous POV's. I prefer, as provided by countless sources to support this:
1. The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.
2. The GT-R is a Japanese supercar.
3. The GT-R is a supercar created by Nissan.
I prefer number 1, but any of the three will be a perfect and accurate description. 71.156.48.66 ( talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the article should read:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]"
Reason being is that the suggested revert is supported by credible sources as noted by wikipedia's policy and not a POV by wiki editors, lastly and most importantly follows wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Discussion has gotten out of hand with POV's, and they provide no credible source to support their opposing view, not one, after being asked to. This standard is not in accordance with wikipedia and therefore the edit must be acknowledged immediately.
It is not up to you to say whether or not to call it a supercar. Credible sources decide that. 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot undermine these sources and say they are irrelevant. This has been discussed already by scholars in the automotive press many times over else they risk their credibility, so we must stick with the sources according to wiki's policy and not POV's or original research. Again, provide a source to support your view, so far you haven't been able to provide one. 75.7.233.121 ( talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, provide a source(my point exactly). The biased editors here have also page blanked and altered the supercar page, the result was my revert to their vandalism, do not make false accusations. thank you. Again provide a source, until then there is no credibility to your posts, just POV's basically. I am done with this discussion until a source is provided. It's as simple as that. :-) 75.7.233.121 ( talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, it is not up to you to make the distinction, it has already been discussed in the automotive press/circles, and they have agreed to use the term supercar. The rest is distortion and original research on behalf of wiki editors. Again, provide a source, until then, I am done with this argument, there isn't a debate at all according to wiki's policy. It is as simple as that :-) 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done my best to assume good faith, but at this stage i think it may be safe to say that the above user (ie compscientist and various IP accounts) is probably trolling. This user repeatedly ignores all logical discussion going on with regards to this topic and simply posts the same thing again and again, even though it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This user is probably doing this to cause an argument, which has happened time and time again. I'm unsure what the official wikipedia policy is in such a situation, but since this user is adding nothing of value to the discussion it's probably best to ignore their calls. they're just trolling by posting flamebait.
Either that, or the user is approaching this discussion with a complete misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies, and a lack of will to learn the actual meaning and purposes of wikipedia policies. As this user's arguments are in opposition to mine, i'm doing my best to give their argument full consideration on its merits, but I can only come to the conclusion that the arguments have no merit due to a complete lack of regard or understanding of the policies and issues in question.
It is fruitless to address the arguments provided by this user, as their arguments are indeed completely unrelated to this discussion. Hugzz ( talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, all I'm asking for is a source, these editors have teamed up on me doesn't mean they're right, yet they provide no sources at all. 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, just provide a source backing your claim, not POV's or original research(there are negative reports too, duh! and POV's again are not necessary). The journalism circles/sources are free from bias in this case because there is a consensus as many have accumulated the same results. According to wikipedia's policy this is the correct path, do not subject to original research. thank you 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep the discussion going, Where are the facts? Where are the sources? I'm just contributing like everyone else. Thank You. 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be pretty much a consensus regarding the "supercar" issue, both here and on wiki project automobiles, so what's the next step? It would be nice to get the article unlocked because it has been steadily growing into a really nice article over the last few weeks, and this recent locking has obviously halted the growth of the article.
Even though I suspect that a consensus has generally been met on this issue, I feel that the issue is such that those who disagree will continue to revert the article to include the term "supercar", regardless of whether it goes against the general consensus. Thus, I think that it would be best, if possible, to have some kind of formal guideline written up regarding this? Or to have someone with sufficient authority to say finally "yes, this term is a peacock term" or "yes, this term is a neologism" or even "yes the consensus seems to be that 'supercar' isn't a suitable term for wikipedia". I suspect that without an authoritarian statement or guideline to fall back on, this will return to edit wars involving people who want to call their favourite car a "supercar".
The advantage of having a formal statement on this issue is that it would allow us to apply it across the whole of wikipedia, which would be nice Hugzz ( talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Simple answer to your question, the sources provided already are a formal guideline and that is the authority, not wiki POV's as suggested by wikipedia's policies. There is no debate here at all, look at the very first post of the talk page. thank you 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
SO, seriously guys.. what has to be done to have a recognized consensus? It sucks to have the page be locked for so long, but we really cannot get it unlocked until there is a consensus. I tend to think that a consensus has been met (with one or two few opposing viewpoints, at least one of them probably a troll), but I may be biased. So what needs to be done to get things moving? Hugzz ( talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, provide a source, then there will be a debate, until then the term supercar, as provided by sources, should be used. thank you. 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
All you people here cannot and have not participated in debate for a long time, in effect you are gagging debate until it goes away in order to satisify your original points of view. Please provide sources that back your claims.
The motoring industry seems to be in agreement that the GT-R is a supercar yet the bias in this page refuses to accept a widely held view by motor journalists.-- Zerosignal84 ( talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically they are saying is that you should show a source to support your claim. 63.164.145.198 ( talk) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you say there is no need for sources? You've got to be kidding me. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 76.208.157.142 ( talk) 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been rumour of an accident in Hong Kong with the first GT-R, has there? Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} No edit requested, so nothing done. DMacks ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Anyone who sees this please do not edit the article about the accident, unless we have one notability. Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Nissan GT-R will make it's world motorsport début in Australia's Targa Tasmania tarmac rally. [7] [8] Oosh ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone precisely and briefly define what supercar means? EconomistBR ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
CompScientist is 100 percent correct. The current intro is entirely original research and very deceptive. It is phrased in two sentences in order to condescend the status of the car. I will report it as an original research violation of wikipedia policies if there is nothing done.
Currently it states:
"The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008. Nissan and the automotive press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"
There is no need for the second sentence in the statement. This second sentence is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion stating that "the press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar" and directs the question that some other people do not think it is a supercar. This is fine only if sources are provided(as suggested by CompScientist), but the problem is that no source is provided stating it is not a supercar, resulting in the editors opinion(no sources) and violation of wikipedia's policy.
It should state in a shorter and better way as:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008."
When the car is released internationally it should change but not differentiate from the statement below:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"
Wikipedia says:
"Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.
Finally, the term supercar is encyclopeadic, it is a noun. The term "high performance" is not encyclopeadic, it's an adjective/verb, and currently there is no "high performance" article on wikipedia(I don't think it is qualified to ever be one). Thus the term "high performance" can be deleted from the original/false introduction without penalty.
I will report this as an OR violation if it doesn't get resolved using what sources have stated. The introduction below omits original research and it should be reinstated as(or an inherited version that doesn't violate original research):
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]" 63.164.145.198 ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 71.156.61.230 ( talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on WP:CAR was to remove supercar labels from all articles. I went ahead and started the process. At this point it would be great if we could all get back to actual editing instead of this bickering. Now that the Bugatti Veyron article does not use the supercar label, the arguements that the GT-R page should, are pretty thin. As I was going through the articles, I noticed that on many classic supercars like the Lamborghini Miura the supercar label wasn't even used in the first place, it was however mentioned that it is often refered to as the first modern supercar, this is exactly how an encyclopedia article should be phrased, avoiding nebulous labels. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 71.156.61.230 ( talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even included in its own subheading? It's irrelevant, and shoudl be briefly mentioned in the introduction, no? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nissan stock GT-R: 1.02.055 @ Tsukuba Best Motoring. Driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya. Best Motoring 03|2008 issue.
Nissan stock GT-R: 7.38.54 @ Nurburgring - Inside Line: A Lap of the Nurburgring in the 2009 Nissan GT-R and photo from Tokyo Motorshow 2007. Also, this time is confirmed on Wiki's Nordschleife laptimes list.
Mine's stock GT-R: 1.54.688 @ Fuji Speedway - Translated Post From Mine's Official Newsblog This time was improved by "Tarzan" Yamada during HKS 35 Anninversay Festival, but now there is no confirmations from HKS or Mine's.
Sunline Racing stock GT-R: 2.22.280 @ Suzuka - photo with clearly visible 2.22.280
I'll search for more laptimes and confirmations. I think these laptimes should be added to Nissan GT-R article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PathfinderRM (
talk •
contribs)
12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the source to #33 is a link to idforums. Isn't that site not a really good source? Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to avoid any further edit warring by clearly explaining why the current image should not be replaced by the image the Wikiarrangment editor has uploaded. Here are the two images in question.
The best possible image should be used in the lead info box. While image choice is often subjective, I don't think there really can be an arguement that the USDM image uploaded by Wikiarrangement editor is superior. It is a smaller file, It is not as well lit, the angle shows less of the vehicle's profile, their is a lot of distracting background activity and there are unrelated people in the image who have not given there consent to be pictured. The current image is about as good as we can get, some editors perfer outdoor images, but this is a secondary concern especially in light of the other issues. The fact that Wikiarrangment editor's image is of a USDM model is not a concern. This page covers all GT-Rs and no preference should be given to the USDM version. In anycase the corner lights are the only cosmetic difference between the JDM and USDM models. An image highlighting this difference could be used once the page gets a little longer, but at this point I think it would be undue weight to discuss such a minor detail change. Usually I would support keeping both images, but we have quite a few as it is and the new one does not add enough to warrent its inclusion amongst the other higher quality images. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
considers the purchase of GT-R. -- Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like sources conflict on this. Edmunds confirmed plans for a Spec V, but more recently it looks like AutoExpress confirmed plans for an identical V Spec. I don't have any sources for this but I wouldn't be suprised if Nissan used to Spec V label for the US version to bring it in line with the Sentra SE-R Spec V and the V Spec label for the rest of world. I think we might want to relable the section "High performance version" or something along those lines and mention the conflicting information until it become more clear what the naming convention will be. Any thoughts? -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not give me the argument on what constitutes a supercar. Obviously it is encyclopeadic. The proof is here supercar. 130.166.68.25 ( talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please give a concrete and constructive response to the two articles that I have presented which you seem to ignore. Thank you. CompScientist ( talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus or discussion on WP:CAR. There is no need for a consensus and we do not need to go beyond that. First answer and reason why you disagree with the author in the two articles. If there is no legitimate answer the argument ends there and the term supercar is applied. Thank you. CompScientist ( talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This debate is LONG over - we discussed it at great length - we came to a solid consensus - the term is vague and generally useless and is not to be used to describe specific vehicles in Wikipedia. We have an article about the term - because there is such a term and it's widely used - and in that article we quite correctly explain that it's a vague term and we go on to present references to prove that. All that your references can ever prove is that some journalist SAID that some car was a supercar - that's not proof that the term means anything more than adjectives like "fast" - and it speaks more to the lack of originality and verbal precision on the part of the journalist than it says about the nature of the thing he's discussing.
In truth, every definition we could come up with for "supercar" can be invalidated by finding journalists that used the term for something way outside of that definition.
So - the term has little or no meaning. Just as we don't report that a car is "very fast" or "agile" just because a journalist says so - we also don't say that a car is a "supercar" just because a journalist says so.
The way forward is to describe the performance of the car in numbers (top speed, 0-60 time, etc) and the price in dollars - add a nice photo to show how sleek and stylish it is - and let the reader decide for him/herself whether they want to call it a supercar or not. That is the encyclopedic way to proceed.
If you could come up with a definition of the term that (let's say) 90% of the 30 or so online dictionaries and a wide selection of paper dictionaries could agree on - or perhaps if you had a clear-cut definition that was formally agreed upon by a large number of journalists and for which there were no known exceptions - then MAYBE you'd be on to something - but trust me, we've been down those routes and they are all dead-ends. To define a word like this to properly encompass vehicles as diverse as Range Rovers, Arial Atoms and Ferrari Enzo's - yet exclude MINI Coopers...is going to be challenging!
So, the term "supercar" is more or less meaningless. Meaningless words add NOTHING to the description of a vehicle in this encyclopedia - and worse still, they cause enormous bust-ups between the fanboys of one car versus another. You need to learn when to give up the argument...that time is now.
SteveBaker ( talk) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So, would anyone take exception if I edited the intro "The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan" to remove the phrase "high performance automobile". It seems to me that this phrase is easily as subjective as the term "supercar". after all, what defines "high performance"? And why cant we let the numbers speak for themselves? (ie the HP ratings, the 0-60 times, so on and so forth)? I dont particuarly feel it's my place as a wikipedia editor to be telling the world that the Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile, without there being a definition of "high performance" with regards to cars..
Any suggestions for a replacement intro, if people agree with me that "high performance automobile" is a touch on the subjective side? Hugzz ( talk) 09:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
CompScientist (
talk |
contribs) |
CompScientist (
talk |
contribs) |
||
Line 734: | Line 734: | ||
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:You still question the thousands of journalists that use the term. They have done their research also and came to a conclusion that overwhelmingly sides with an unbiased view. Here is another random article, from the UK: http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/218289/nissan_gtr.html[[User:CompScientist|CompScientist]] ([[User talk:CompScientist|talk]]) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
:You still question the thousands of journalists that use the term. It is overwhelming and it is by no means a coincidence. They have done their research also and came to a conclusion that overwhelmingly sides with an unbiased view. Here is another random article, from the UK: http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/218289/nissan_gtr.html[[User:CompScientist|CompScientist]] ([[User talk:CompScientist|talk]]) 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== "high performance automobile" == |
== "high performance automobile" == |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nissan GT-R article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
![]() | Automobiles B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
There is really no dispute about whether this is a supercar, and I have yet to see any legitimate source quoted to dispute this. Sepiraph 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate here as to whether or not the GT-R should be referred to as a supercar. Willirennen has pointed to Talk:Supercar saying it would explain. I don't have time to read it all, but I didn't see anything particularly enlightening when skimming over. Personally, I think it's better to rely on the sources for accurate classification rather than leave it to the discretion of editors here. Nissan and Edmunds Inside Line both refer to it as a supercar, so unless there is a reliable source to dispute this, I see no reason to change it. ~ Dusk Knight 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Willirennen ( talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) Referred to as a sports car.7:40 SLR McLaren,Class Supercar/grand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren 7:40 Bugatti Veyron,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron 7:42 Ford_GT,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT 7:43 Lamborghini_Murcielago,Class Supercar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Murcielago The class change of GT-R consents if these slow cars also change to the sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 November 2007
Dusk Knight,You forcibly published a suspected slick tire though grounds were thin. I presented as many as four evidences and objected. You are supporting a Anti Insistence. It is the same also of the problem of the class change. My insistence will be able to be overturned? My insistence must be thorough fairness and objectivity. If so, shut up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 December 2007
Everyone please remember that you're arguing over a "classification" which has NO real world impact and no real meaning. Whether we call the car a "sports car" or a "supercar" doesn't cause the car to go any faster.. the classification has no impact on the actual car itself.
On wikipedia, it shouldn't be necessary to use words such as "supercar" to indicate how good a car is. Rather, the facts surrounding the car should paint the picture for the readers. Thus, rather than saying "The GT-R is a supercar by Nissan..." we should be able to say "The GT-R is a car by Nissan which does 0-100 in x seconds, the 1/4 in x seconds, and various lap times in x seconds". This information alone should allow the reader to say either "wow this is GT-R is a supercar!" or "nice sports car".
In the interest of conservatism, I think It'd be best to say, if anything, "the gt-r has often been referred to as a supercar in the media" or something like that. At the end of the day, however, this is barely worth the edit war. Hugzz 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please if you want to restrict me.The edit to lack fairness and objectivity cannot be never missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Class of SLR McLaren is two marks named Supercar/Grand tourer. Two marks are sure not to have the problem by GT-R either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I questions Dusk Knight.Your favorite car has Audi R8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8 Audi R8 is "Class Supercar"??? A supercar is sure not to include such a Audi R8 alone. Why do not you correct it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Anti GT-R Grim Reaper! Please do not change the thing decided by the decision by majority without permission.If it is dissatisfied, it is necessary to collect more dissenting opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is slower than GT-R, and the cost performance is the lowest excrement car.If the definition of a super-car is put in question, it is necessary to edit it on the page of your favorite car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what all the fuss is about. The car certainly has the performance of a supercar, so why not have it classed just that? Please stay away from philosophical talks about "what constitute a supercar". That have no importance on Wikipedia as it's primary a personal preference issue. SidewalkMCS ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The performance of this car is on per or in most cases, superior. We had ENOUGH talks on "My Supercar Definitions", none of which enlighten anything. So just let the times and numbers speak for themselves. It seems a standard Wikipedia practice why should this article be an exception? SidewalkMCS ( talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nissan gtr is a supercar. CompScientist ( talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The gtr is a supercar and a sportscar no less, a supercar is not a supercar unless it is a sports car. I aggree with those who see the FACTS that back it up as a supercar. Now is the gtr considered an exotic? That surely is up for debate as Nissan has gone global with the car. I have no doubt that the gtr is a supercar. The arguments given above are hilarious. CompScientist ( talk) 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Nissan and reliable sources state the car as a supercar, Yet if someone buys the car they will be dissapointed because its just a sportscar, according to wiki, Nissan is a liar, they have lawyers who lied, they will put their billion dollar company at risk, reputation at risk, lol, this is funny, I do not want to get into an edit war. If an evo is faster than most supercars, it should be considered one, the gtr has redefined the term supercar, an ariel atom does not have all the neccessities of a car to be considered a supercar, it's obvious to see... The consensus here show that we agree on the supercar name and status, yet only two or three who diligently oppose the title supercar. Still, it is a win/win situtation for Nissan, for a car of this "questionable" and inferior status to outperform other "supercars" is an amazing feat. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. using a japanese "wiki" page to verify that this car is not a supercar is just again hilarious. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to a more precise intro including the word supercar. I think the consensus here would agree. Only a few here have POV's and have not provided a reliable source stating that it is "not" a supercar. I agree with Mighty Antar. Unless someone provides strong sources that say without a doubt, and literally, that it is "not" a supercar, we should stick with supercar until then, as provided by Nissan ceo, and respected automobile sources and circles. 75.4.7.27 ( talk) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Nissan GT-R: Redefining the word Supercar", Crappy catch I know, but it just popped into my mind, after looking at all the silly edit war her. Anyways the creator of the car states clearly that "the GT-R is a completely new kind of a Supercar"(my rough translation from a Japanese mag), it really is a small issue how some desperate some people can be on Wikipedia. Some are so eager to discredit the car while some have gone as far as editing all the Supercar articles on wikipedia to something else! quite hilarious really.
210.159.162.112 (
talk)
16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the change made to the intro by 75.4.7.27 as I don't believe we have reached a consensus. Mighty Antar ( talk) 12:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Hugzz ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No one has provided a strong source stating that the gtr is NOT a supercar. It is as simple as that. I have changed the intro to supercar, until anyone can provide credible sources, not POV's as to why it is not a supercar. Again, it is as simple as that.
71.156.55.133 ( talk) 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
^^^^No sources, yet only POV's.^^^^ See my point! Let's stick to the subject of this article... The burden is on those who oppose that Nissan is a supercar must provide SOURCES NOT POV's. It is as simple as that, provide your sources, thank you. 71.156.55.133 ( talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
User 71.156.55.133, please stop reverting the article to say that it is a supercar. There is currently no consensus on the issue, and it is clearly a topic of debate. Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus. Where consensus does not apply, the article should not reflect one point of view nor the other (ie the article should not say that it IS a supercar, and the article should not say that it ISN'T a supercar). Where there is not consensus we should take the conservative approach to the issue and outline the relevant facts. Thus, in this situation rather that either saying "the gtr is a supercar" or "the gtr is not a supercar", we should simply say "the gtr is a car that many in the automotive press have called a 'supercar'". Both you and I can agree to this statement; whereas both you and i do NOT agree with the statement that "the gtr is a supercar". [actually, in honesty i do think that it's probably a supercar; i just do not feel that its suitable for wikipedia to define it as such] -- Hugzz ( talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Many do not agree with the sentence "Nissan and the press frequently refer it to a supercar". It is deceiving. This sentence leads the reader to believe that there are some that do not think it is a supercar. BUT more importantly, no one has provided a credible source that it is not a supercar, this leads me to believe that the opposition is only wiki readers and their POV's. not a credible source that states it does not belong in this category. If so, then we must delete the term supercar from EVERY article in wiki, until this is resolved. AGAIN PROVIDE YOUR SOURCE THAT IT IS NOT A SUPERCAR, AND NOT YOUR POV'S. Yet, there is still not a source to back it up in this page so far and only POV's. thank you. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted it back to supercar again. I feel that the sources back it up. Yet the opposition has not provided a credible source and only POV's, again. I believe that this is the consensus, except for only two or three who diligently oppose, with POV's and no sources.... 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We need a source that says clearly and specifically without a doubt that "it is NOT a supercar", not a source that uses the term sportscar, as it does not literally and specifically imply the gtr is Not a supercar and it is a general term used for supercars all the time. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is not one source out there that says the GT-R is "Not" a supercar. Period. Others whom agree it is a supercar have credible sources, albeit primary, credible sources. Those who oppose have not provided one, not one source, not even one, zero sources, stating that the GT-R "not" a supercar. It is as simple as that.
75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yet no sources provided again, and trying to put attention elsewhere, this is a question of sources as those are the ones closer to academia and not merely POV's from wiki editors. thank you. This is all about sources from the beginning as it helps reach a consensus that is not biased from the same wiki editors. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source. Thank you. 75.4.7.201 ([[User talk:75.4.7.201|talk]]) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, just provide a credible source. Thank you. 75.4.7.201 ( talk) 02:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems that six times you responded without a source, just POV's, whilst ones who concurr it is a supercar have done so. After all this, still no source has been provided, just POV's. I agree with 75.4.7.201 CompScientist ( talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I really believe that a source needs to be provided also. It really says a lot when one hasn't been provided at all!!! Amazing, no sources yet, just repeated POV's. CompScientist ( talk) 03:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that there in no real debate here, just POV's from diligent biased editors. It is sufficient to keep the term supercar until sources, not POV's show otherwise. CompScientist ( talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, no POV's, just provide a source to support your POV. Amazingly you haven't done so. I can really care less whether you like the gtr or not, lol, just give a credible source to support your POV. thank you! CompScientist ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, and again, no POV's please, there should be sources to back up your claim, you have provided none whatsoever, CompScientist ( talk) 05:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Cover Story: Nissan GT-R This is it, then. No more hype, no more tantalising tales from the Ring. Finally we can judge Nissan’s new supercar from the driver’s seat.
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/213486/this_months_evo.html
I don't see why people are getting so worked up about the use of this term, I don't see this attitude regarding someone being called a supermodel, and at least with supercars, there are figures to back up the use of the word. Sennen goroshi ( talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the term supercar, whether encyclopedic or not, is also POV. To make everything fair, there are sources that say gtr is a supercar, and none whatsoever that say it is not. I hope people see the point and do not get sucked into this argument of whether it's an encyclopedic term because that quite frankly is someone's POV. There are sources that state gtr is a supercar under this supposed subjective term, while on the same playingfield, none that states it is not a supercar under this subjective term. So provide a source, it is as simple as that, no POV's, Thank you. P.S. to say supercar is simply a matter of opinion is your opinion and POV, do not enforce it on others....no redefining vocabulary terms, no brad pitt analogies lol, no marketing scheme analogies lol, no POV's period, just provide a source, we in favor have, why can't you???? 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a warning to Daniel J. Leivick, 1. do not erase my posts on the discussion page. 2. provide a source, not POV's. 3. provide a source, not POV's. 4. provide a source, not POV's. 5. again, do not erase any of my posts or try to block me for an unreasonable POV. thank you 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nissan GT-R outperforms expectations
http://www.caradvice.com.au/9022/nissan-gt-r-outperforms-expectations/
"When Nissan first released the performance figures for their new GT-R, many scoffed at the unbelievably quick times Nissan were toting - 3.5 seconds to 100km/h and an 11.6 second run down the quarter mile off the showroom floor, right.
However as journalists the world over get their hands on the new GT-R, it seems Nissan have actually been conservative with their performance figures, with auto-magazine Edmunds recording a 3.3 second sprint to 100km/h and matching the blisteringly quick 11.6 second quarter mile at 196km/h - and from only two attempts.
This puts the GT-R well into supercar territory, at less than a quarter of the price." Zerosignal84 ( talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/galleries/other/awards07/12/
The GT-R is monstrously good. It locks on like a missile. Seriously, this thing hooks up and accelerates like a Bugatti Veyron. Its body control is breathtaking, too - you just know that this car has been meticulously engineered down to the last tiny grommet. I seriously doubt that there is a car on the planet that can corner faster or more aggressively than this. - Jason Barlow
-- Zerosignal84 ( talk) 10:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Again no POV's, just provide a source, thank you. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You have merely provided an ambiguous definition of supercar and using POV's as to the status of the car. Again no POV's, you have not provided a source which states that the GTR is NOT a supercar literally. It is only fair as we in favor have provided many, so that we may compare sources, not POV's or vocabulary definitions. Until then, I am done with this discussion and until there is a credible source(not from a dictionary lol, or brad pitt analogies lol) to say it is not a supercar, I think it is perfectly fine to use the term supercar in the intro. P.S. Even if your definition/source is valid, is isn't a strong one, and I do not see a statement saying "the Nissan GT-R is not a supercar", just your POV again. I hope you see that it is a weak argument on your part. Again show me a credible source. Thank you. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Logically it comes down to that, everyone here is on a level playingfield, one side of the argument has provided a published article from credible sources, which ""supports their argument"" without a doubt. To debunk this notion the other side doesn't provide any source to ""SUPPORT"" their argument at all, just preaching, euphemisms and their personal POV's and lectures on the english language, That is hilarious. I see no debate here at all, just a deceptive circumstantial counter argument with only POV's to back it up, and even in wiki's case doesn't cut it. 75.7.235.53 ( talk) 05:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Again no POV's please, seriously, this dictionary(2003), gtr 2008. get it? show a credible source, not defintions,thank you, 75.3.245.182 ( talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a non binding straw poll would be helpful in acheiving consensus. We have been debating this for a long time and I think it would be helpful to see where we all stand at this time. As far as I can tell there are two camps (correct me if I am wrong). Those in favor of the current wording(high peformance sports coupe/with mention of supercar label being applied by Nissan and some in the press)and those who would like to use the supercar label. Obviously the results of this poll are not binding and we will still have to work towards a consensus, but I think it would be good to get an idea about which editors come down on which side. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 18:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this would make a nice amend that would satisfy both camps. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan, and has been labeled a supercar by Nissan and several automotive magazines. It was released in Japan on December 6, 2007 and will be released internationally in early 2008. | ” |
Well if that is the case I would fully expect that all references to 'Supercar' be removed from Wikipedia, the whole issue simply comes down to that some people do not think this car deserves the title. Be it the badge it wears I don't know, I wonder what would happen if it wore a Porsche badged and was priced at $300k.
The facts are this car: - Is called a supercar be numerous people the automotive press; - It has a never before seen rear mounted transaxle; - Perhaps the most advanced and inteligent AWD system; - Wikipedia will look stupid and wrong with all the press calling this a Supercar and it not. -- 202.44.184.153 ( talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
It is clear that there is no debate here and evidently discussed already by the professionals. The scholars/journalist/graduates in the field have already asked the questions raised in this discussion about using supercar and its definition(I know there has to be at least one english graduate writer/editor in the topgear article lol!!!)yet still concluded with the term supercar as the appropriate classification. It is not up to biased editors to determine what supercar is. Again, it's obvious that this has been disscussed before and determined already by the journalists/historians/scholars and that's why it is used, period. It is funny that the wiki editors opposing using supercar cannot agree on using the term "high performance" also!!!, and still have not provided sources to support their view!!! We leave this up to the professionals, not wiki editors and their humorous POV's. I prefer, as provided by countless sources to support this:
1. The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.
2. The GT-R is a Japanese supercar.
3. The GT-R is a supercar created by Nissan.
I prefer number 1, but any of the three will be a perfect and accurate description. 71.156.48.66 ( talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the article should read:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]"
Reason being is that the suggested revert is supported by credible sources as noted by wikipedia's policy and not a POV by wiki editors, lastly and most importantly follows wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Discussion has gotten out of hand with POV's, and they provide no credible source to support their opposing view, not one, after being asked to. This standard is not in accordance with wikipedia and therefore the edit must be acknowledged immediately.
It is not up to you to say whether or not to call it a supercar. Credible sources decide that. 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot undermine these sources and say they are irrelevant. This has been discussed already by scholars in the automotive press many times over else they risk their credibility, so we must stick with the sources according to wiki's policy and not POV's or original research. Again, provide a source to support your view, so far you haven't been able to provide one. 75.7.233.121 ( talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, provide a source(my point exactly). The biased editors here have also page blanked and altered the supercar page, the result was my revert to their vandalism, do not make false accusations. thank you. Again provide a source, until then there is no credibility to your posts, just POV's basically. I am done with this discussion until a source is provided. It's as simple as that. :-) 75.7.233.121 ( talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, it is not up to you to make the distinction, it has already been discussed in the automotive press/circles, and they have agreed to use the term supercar. The rest is distortion and original research on behalf of wiki editors. Again, provide a source, until then, I am done with this argument, there isn't a debate at all according to wiki's policy. It is as simple as that :-) 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have done my best to assume good faith, but at this stage i think it may be safe to say that the above user (ie compscientist and various IP accounts) is probably trolling. This user repeatedly ignores all logical discussion going on with regards to this topic and simply posts the same thing again and again, even though it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This user is probably doing this to cause an argument, which has happened time and time again. I'm unsure what the official wikipedia policy is in such a situation, but since this user is adding nothing of value to the discussion it's probably best to ignore their calls. they're just trolling by posting flamebait.
Either that, or the user is approaching this discussion with a complete misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies, and a lack of will to learn the actual meaning and purposes of wikipedia policies. As this user's arguments are in opposition to mine, i'm doing my best to give their argument full consideration on its merits, but I can only come to the conclusion that the arguments have no merit due to a complete lack of regard or understanding of the policies and issues in question.
It is fruitless to address the arguments provided by this user, as their arguments are indeed completely unrelated to this discussion. Hugzz ( talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, all I'm asking for is a source, these editors have teamed up on me doesn't mean they're right, yet they provide no sources at all. 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 01:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, just provide a source backing your claim, not POV's or original research(there are negative reports too, duh! and POV's again are not necessary). The journalism circles/sources are free from bias in this case because there is a consensus as many have accumulated the same results. According to wikipedia's policy this is the correct path, do not subject to original research. thank you 75.8.98.85 ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep the discussion going, Where are the facts? Where are the sources? I'm just contributing like everyone else. Thank You. 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be pretty much a consensus regarding the "supercar" issue, both here and on wiki project automobiles, so what's the next step? It would be nice to get the article unlocked because it has been steadily growing into a really nice article over the last few weeks, and this recent locking has obviously halted the growth of the article.
Even though I suspect that a consensus has generally been met on this issue, I feel that the issue is such that those who disagree will continue to revert the article to include the term "supercar", regardless of whether it goes against the general consensus. Thus, I think that it would be best, if possible, to have some kind of formal guideline written up regarding this? Or to have someone with sufficient authority to say finally "yes, this term is a peacock term" or "yes, this term is a neologism" or even "yes the consensus seems to be that 'supercar' isn't a suitable term for wikipedia". I suspect that without an authoritarian statement or guideline to fall back on, this will return to edit wars involving people who want to call their favourite car a "supercar".
The advantage of having a formal statement on this issue is that it would allow us to apply it across the whole of wikipedia, which would be nice Hugzz ( talk) 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Simple answer to your question, the sources provided already are a formal guideline and that is the authority, not wiki POV's as suggested by wikipedia's policies. There is no debate here at all, look at the very first post of the talk page. thank you 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
SO, seriously guys.. what has to be done to have a recognized consensus? It sucks to have the page be locked for so long, but we really cannot get it unlocked until there is a consensus. I tend to think that a consensus has been met (with one or two few opposing viewpoints, at least one of them probably a troll), but I may be biased. So what needs to be done to get things moving? Hugzz ( talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, provide a source, then there will be a debate, until then the term supercar, as provided by sources, should be used. thank you. 75.3.251.3 ( talk) 03:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
All you people here cannot and have not participated in debate for a long time, in effect you are gagging debate until it goes away in order to satisify your original points of view. Please provide sources that back your claims.
The motoring industry seems to be in agreement that the GT-R is a supercar yet the bias in this page refuses to accept a widely held view by motor journalists.-- Zerosignal84 ( talk) 09:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically they are saying is that you should show a source to support your claim. 63.164.145.198 ( talk) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you say there is no need for sources? You've got to be kidding me. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 76.208.157.142 ( talk) 10:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been rumour of an accident in Hong Kong with the first GT-R, has there? Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} No edit requested, so nothing done. DMacks ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Anyone who sees this please do not edit the article about the accident, unless we have one notability. Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The Nissan GT-R will make it's world motorsport début in Australia's Targa Tasmania tarmac rally. [7] [8] Oosh ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could someone precisely and briefly define what supercar means? EconomistBR ( talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
CompScientist is 100 percent correct. The current intro is entirely original research and very deceptive. It is phrased in two sentences in order to condescend the status of the car. I will report it as an original research violation of wikipedia policies if there is nothing done.
Currently it states:
"The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan, released in Japan on December 6th, 2007, and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008. Nissan and the automotive press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"
There is no need for the second sentence in the statement. This second sentence is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion stating that "the press frequently refer to the GT-R as a supercar" and directs the question that some other people do not think it is a supercar. This is fine only if sources are provided(as suggested by CompScientist), but the problem is that no source is provided stating it is not a supercar, resulting in the editors opinion(no sources) and violation of wikipedia's policy.
It should state in a shorter and better way as:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008."
When the car is released internationally it should change but not differentiate from the statement below:
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar.[2][3][4][5]"
Wikipedia says:
"Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.
Finally, the term supercar is encyclopeadic, it is a noun. The term "high performance" is not encyclopeadic, it's an adjective/verb, and currently there is no "high performance" article on wikipedia(I don't think it is qualified to ever be one). Thus the term "high performance" can be deleted from the original/false introduction without penalty.
I will report this as an OR violation if it doesn't get resolved using what sources have stated. The introduction below omits original research and it should be reinstated as(or an inherited version that doesn't violate original research):
"The Nissan GT-R is a supercar scheduled to be released in Japan on December 6th 2007 and expected to be released internationally by the beginning of 2008.[2][3][4][5]" 63.164.145.198 ( talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 71.156.61.230 ( talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on WP:CAR was to remove supercar labels from all articles. I went ahead and started the process. At this point it would be great if we could all get back to actual editing instead of this bickering. Now that the Bugatti Veyron article does not use the supercar label, the arguements that the GT-R page should, are pretty thin. As I was going through the articles, I noticed that on many classic supercars like the Lamborghini Miura the supercar label wasn't even used in the first place, it was however mentioned that it is often refered to as the first modern supercar, this is exactly how an encyclopedia article should be phrased, avoiding nebulous labels. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 07:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia. 71.156.61.230 ( talk) 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is this even included in its own subheading? It's irrelevant, and shoudl be briefly mentioned in the introduction, no? —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Nissan stock GT-R: 1.02.055 @ Tsukuba Best Motoring. Driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya. Best Motoring 03|2008 issue.
Nissan stock GT-R: 7.38.54 @ Nurburgring - Inside Line: A Lap of the Nurburgring in the 2009 Nissan GT-R and photo from Tokyo Motorshow 2007. Also, this time is confirmed on Wiki's Nordschleife laptimes list.
Mine's stock GT-R: 1.54.688 @ Fuji Speedway - Translated Post From Mine's Official Newsblog This time was improved by "Tarzan" Yamada during HKS 35 Anninversay Festival, but now there is no confirmations from HKS or Mine's.
Sunline Racing stock GT-R: 2.22.280 @ Suzuka - photo with clearly visible 2.22.280
I'll search for more laptimes and confirmations. I think these laptimes should be added to Nissan GT-R article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PathfinderRM (
talk •
contribs)
12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the source to #33 is a link to idforums. Isn't that site not a really good source? Ryou-kun16 ( talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to avoid any further edit warring by clearly explaining why the current image should not be replaced by the image the Wikiarrangment editor has uploaded. Here are the two images in question.
The best possible image should be used in the lead info box. While image choice is often subjective, I don't think there really can be an arguement that the USDM image uploaded by Wikiarrangement editor is superior. It is a smaller file, It is not as well lit, the angle shows less of the vehicle's profile, their is a lot of distracting background activity and there are unrelated people in the image who have not given there consent to be pictured. The current image is about as good as we can get, some editors perfer outdoor images, but this is a secondary concern especially in light of the other issues. The fact that Wikiarrangment editor's image is of a USDM model is not a concern. This page covers all GT-Rs and no preference should be given to the USDM version. In anycase the corner lights are the only cosmetic difference between the JDM and USDM models. An image highlighting this difference could be used once the page gets a little longer, but at this point I think it would be undue weight to discuss such a minor detail change. Usually I would support keeping both images, but we have quite a few as it is and the new one does not add enough to warrent its inclusion amongst the other higher quality images. -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
considers the purchase of GT-R. -- Wikiarrangementeditor ( talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like sources conflict on this. Edmunds confirmed plans for a Spec V, but more recently it looks like AutoExpress confirmed plans for an identical V Spec. I don't have any sources for this but I wouldn't be suprised if Nissan used to Spec V label for the US version to bring it in line with the Sentra SE-R Spec V and the V Spec label for the rest of world. I think we might want to relable the section "High performance version" or something along those lines and mention the conflicting information until it become more clear what the naming convention will be. Any thoughts? -- Daniel J. Leivick ( talk) 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not give me the argument on what constitutes a supercar. Obviously it is encyclopeadic. The proof is here supercar. 130.166.68.25 ( talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please give a concrete and constructive response to the two articles that I have presented which you seem to ignore. Thank you. CompScientist ( talk) 03:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus or discussion on WP:CAR. There is no need for a consensus and we do not need to go beyond that. First answer and reason why you disagree with the author in the two articles. If there is no legitimate answer the argument ends there and the term supercar is applied. Thank you. CompScientist ( talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This debate is LONG over - we discussed it at great length - we came to a solid consensus - the term is vague and generally useless and is not to be used to describe specific vehicles in Wikipedia. We have an article about the term - because there is such a term and it's widely used - and in that article we quite correctly explain that it's a vague term and we go on to present references to prove that. All that your references can ever prove is that some journalist SAID that some car was a supercar - that's not proof that the term means anything more than adjectives like "fast" - and it speaks more to the lack of originality and verbal precision on the part of the journalist than it says about the nature of the thing he's discussing.
In truth, every definition we could come up with for "supercar" can be invalidated by finding journalists that used the term for something way outside of that definition.
So - the term has little or no meaning. Just as we don't report that a car is "very fast" or "agile" just because a journalist says so - we also don't say that a car is a "supercar" just because a journalist says so.
The way forward is to describe the performance of the car in numbers (top speed, 0-60 time, etc) and the price in dollars - add a nice photo to show how sleek and stylish it is - and let the reader decide for him/herself whether they want to call it a supercar or not. That is the encyclopedic way to proceed.
If you could come up with a definition of the term that (let's say) 90% of the 30 or so online dictionaries and a wide selection of paper dictionaries could agree on - or perhaps if you had a clear-cut definition that was formally agreed upon by a large number of journalists and for which there were no known exceptions - then MAYBE you'd be on to something - but trust me, we've been down those routes and they are all dead-ends. To define a word like this to properly encompass vehicles as diverse as Range Rovers, Arial Atoms and Ferrari Enzo's - yet exclude MINI Coopers...is going to be challenging!
So, the term "supercar" is more or less meaningless. Meaningless words add NOTHING to the description of a vehicle in this encyclopedia - and worse still, they cause enormous bust-ups between the fanboys of one car versus another. You need to learn when to give up the argument...that time is now.
SteveBaker ( talk) 06:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
So, would anyone take exception if I edited the intro "The Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile created by Nissan" to remove the phrase "high performance automobile". It seems to me that this phrase is easily as subjective as the term "supercar". after all, what defines "high performance"? And why cant we let the numbers speak for themselves? (ie the HP ratings, the 0-60 times, so on and so forth)? I dont particuarly feel it's my place as a wikipedia editor to be telling the world that the Nissan GT-R is a high performance automobile, without there being a definition of "high performance" with regards to cars..
Any suggestions for a replacement intro, if people agree with me that "high performance automobile" is a touch on the subjective side? Hugzz ( talk) 09:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)