"Jaguar to join up with B.M.C.
£18m deal to strengthen front against Detroit.
Under a jointly agreed £18,200,000 deal announced last night the Jaguar group of companies and the British Motor Corporation are to merge. In financial terms it is a takeover of Sir William Lyons's Coventry company by Sir George Harriman's Longbridge giant, the result of which will be a new group comprising Jaguar, BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher. . . ."
see: Jaguars to join up with B.M.C. from our motoring correspondent. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 1; Issue 56681. This reference was provided.
It is a common ploy to call a takeover (purchase) a merger to placate supporters of the target business.
Mind if I change your edits back?
Eddaido (
talk)
07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Eddaido,
I have broken down my reply given previously and set it against the questions in turn for you so that you can now see it more clearly.
1. Can you account for the subject of our discussion being, it appears, so completely expunged from a book (that is all about him and his business) which has been given Lyons' approval? See above — (foreword by Sir William Lyons I regard as a seal of approval on an "authorised" history)
I cannot give any help to your comment of what you believe to be missing content in the book by Andrew Whyte.
2. I can see you are passionate in your assertions. Would you please provide proper references for your statements (where I can see the truth of these assertions for myself and so can everyone else) because then I can better understand what you believe is being said by Harriman and Lyons.
I would recommend to you the JDHT official biography of Sir William Lyons by Philip Porter and Paul Skilleter, from where the references regarding the merger of Jaguar and BMC are sourced and which was first published in 2001.
3. There is one more thing. Would you please very briefly describe on this page your understanding of the meaning of merger as used at the beginning of your last message above.
A simple encyclopaedic definition of a merger is a combination of two companies to form a new company – in this case BMC and Jaguar Cars merging to form BMH. Feel free to review this at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp
Now, perhaps you would care in return to answer the following points:
Kind regards,
Dainase ( talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Eddaido
Is it correct to say that you are choosing to ignore documented information - a legal announcement of the merger as one of them - for your own interpretation and opinion which you provide no evidence for your belief and so instead rely on comments by other authors to support your point?
Kind regards,
Dainase ( talk) 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Colons Dainase, colons.
I'm afraid I have little respect (for the statements under discussion) for almost all your references. Here are my thoughts:
As you can see from the above, it is far from a small number of 'partisans of the Jaguar and Daimler chosen view'
there are seven JAGUARs there! indicating highly partisan publications
that also state the two companies merge - or do you consider that the likes of the BBC, Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Telegraph are also 'partisan'?
No, they were probably merely unconcerned by such minor matters when writing those items.
You may consider the inclusion of a link from a book about restoring MGs to be of little value - it is of equal weight to a publication about the Rover 75.
I will once again refer you to your original, and very succinctly put, point:
"this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin"
And on this I absolutely agree with you.
You must bear in mind that any announcement made regarding publicly listed companies is not 'PR spin' It was (and is) subject to legal review and approval. Basically, telling fibs is not allowed; if the content of an announcement was uncomfortable for a party then so be it. Such announcements are for the notice of shareholders, not for the whim and pleasure of the company and its senior staff and the seriousness of making misleading announcements are severe.
Hahahahaha ha
I also must question your assertion that the statement of the two companies as a merger by people who have spent considerable time and effort undertaken in researching the history of the companies as 'partisan'. People such as Andrew Whyte, Paul Skilleter, Philip Porter and many others such as the company historian Anders Ditlev Clausager. Bear in mind that the merger took place nearly 50 years ago; what possible embarrassment or discomfort would such people be experiencing, or that of any companies involved? It was a considerable time ago, those involved have long since died and, for Jaguar, the company has since been nationalised, publicly listed, acquired and then acquired again. It is not a question of being 'partisan', but merely reflecting the known, and documented knowledge of the time; that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to, and announced, a merger of the two companies to form BMH. Which is supported by the definition of a merger I gave earlier. And thus satisfies your suggested
duck test. If you can provide evidence from the companies that state the merger to be otherwise this would be welcome, but you have not provided such.
I don't need to - see the duck test, Its a takeover of a relatively small company on disadvantageous terms by a big powerful company that could and did set its own terms. You have mistaken an emollient name (merger) for the reality of the transaction.
So at this point I see only the following; that I have a position where I believe this encyclopaedia should state the known facts, and that you believe it should state the stance of other commentators.
Yes, I understand your position and how you are being, have been misled.
So it here that we arrive at your suggestion of text to accommodate the two views. I would suggest that the content remains as is, with the insertion that other third parties have expressed a view that Jaguar was purchased, with a reference to the Detroit news article, as follows:
"A merger with the British Motor Corporation followed in 1966, the resulting enlarged company now being renamed as British Motor Holdings (BMH) although some third parties have expressed that this was an acquisition...".
This is just a general Detroit daily local newspaper isn't it, no special interest in dealings in Warwickshire? Not really much different from Milwaukee then
Briefly, I do not agree to that statement being inserted in the Jaguar Cars article.
Please may I have access to the full text of the item in the Detroit News you have quoted
You might like to take a look at these links
WP:SOURCE and
WP:Reliable and
Third-party sources
Thanks,
Eddaido (
talk)
06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Edits to Rover 75
Dear Ericthebluebanana
I have noticed that you have undone an edit to the pages covering the Rover 75 and MG ZT. These regard the insertion of a link to a an external website, which you originally inserted in 2012. Under Wikipedia guidelines such links are regarded as promotional and therefore cannot be included. Please see WP:PROMOTION.
Dainase (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dainase
Hope I am replying in the right place here?
Thanks for your message. Not sure exactly why you are applying one rule to one club but not to others? The Owners Club still has it's entry ("The cars are still popular and actively supported by an active and growing Owners Club[15]") in the body of the article, although I note that you have removed the link to the V8 club, the two-sixties. Our club and the OC are both registered companies (the former I know, the latter as far as I know) and as such, either both should be allowed to be mentioned or neither. Can you explain your logic and your authority in removing these links? (btw, our original link was compromised by www.mgr-forums.com, a spin off from the OC formed by a disgruntled member. If this had not happened then no changes would have been made)
regards
Dave (aka Ericthebluebanana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericthebluebanana ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
"Jaguar to join up with B.M.C.
£18m deal to strengthen front against Detroit.
Under a jointly agreed £18,200,000 deal announced last night the Jaguar group of companies and the British Motor Corporation are to merge. In financial terms it is a takeover of Sir William Lyons's Coventry company by Sir George Harriman's Longbridge giant, the result of which will be a new group comprising Jaguar, BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher. . . ."
see: Jaguars to join up with B.M.C. from our motoring correspondent. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 1; Issue 56681. This reference was provided.
It is a common ploy to call a takeover (purchase) a merger to placate supporters of the target business.
Mind if I change your edits back?
Eddaido (
talk)
07:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Eddaido,
I have broken down my reply given previously and set it against the questions in turn for you so that you can now see it more clearly.
1. Can you account for the subject of our discussion being, it appears, so completely expunged from a book (that is all about him and his business) which has been given Lyons' approval? See above — (foreword by Sir William Lyons I regard as a seal of approval on an "authorised" history)
I cannot give any help to your comment of what you believe to be missing content in the book by Andrew Whyte.
2. I can see you are passionate in your assertions. Would you please provide proper references for your statements (where I can see the truth of these assertions for myself and so can everyone else) because then I can better understand what you believe is being said by Harriman and Lyons.
I would recommend to you the JDHT official biography of Sir William Lyons by Philip Porter and Paul Skilleter, from where the references regarding the merger of Jaguar and BMC are sourced and which was first published in 2001.
3. There is one more thing. Would you please very briefly describe on this page your understanding of the meaning of merger as used at the beginning of your last message above.
A simple encyclopaedic definition of a merger is a combination of two companies to form a new company – in this case BMC and Jaguar Cars merging to form BMH. Feel free to review this at http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp
Now, perhaps you would care in return to answer the following points:
Kind regards,
Dainase ( talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Eddaido
Is it correct to say that you are choosing to ignore documented information - a legal announcement of the merger as one of them - for your own interpretation and opinion which you provide no evidence for your belief and so instead rely on comments by other authors to support your point?
Kind regards,
Dainase ( talk) 12:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Colons Dainase, colons.
I'm afraid I have little respect (for the statements under discussion) for almost all your references. Here are my thoughts:
As you can see from the above, it is far from a small number of 'partisans of the Jaguar and Daimler chosen view'
there are seven JAGUARs there! indicating highly partisan publications
that also state the two companies merge - or do you consider that the likes of the BBC, Encyclopaedia Britannica and The Telegraph are also 'partisan'?
No, they were probably merely unconcerned by such minor matters when writing those items.
You may consider the inclusion of a link from a book about restoring MGs to be of little value - it is of equal weight to a publication about the Rover 75.
I will once again refer you to your original, and very succinctly put, point:
"this is an encyclopedia and it should contain facts rather than PR spin"
And on this I absolutely agree with you.
You must bear in mind that any announcement made regarding publicly listed companies is not 'PR spin' It was (and is) subject to legal review and approval. Basically, telling fibs is not allowed; if the content of an announcement was uncomfortable for a party then so be it. Such announcements are for the notice of shareholders, not for the whim and pleasure of the company and its senior staff and the seriousness of making misleading announcements are severe.
Hahahahaha ha
I also must question your assertion that the statement of the two companies as a merger by people who have spent considerable time and effort undertaken in researching the history of the companies as 'partisan'. People such as Andrew Whyte, Paul Skilleter, Philip Porter and many others such as the company historian Anders Ditlev Clausager. Bear in mind that the merger took place nearly 50 years ago; what possible embarrassment or discomfort would such people be experiencing, or that of any companies involved? It was a considerable time ago, those involved have long since died and, for Jaguar, the company has since been nationalised, publicly listed, acquired and then acquired again. It is not a question of being 'partisan', but merely reflecting the known, and documented knowledge of the time; that George Harriman and Sir William Lyons agreed to, and announced, a merger of the two companies to form BMH. Which is supported by the definition of a merger I gave earlier. And thus satisfies your suggested
duck test. If you can provide evidence from the companies that state the merger to be otherwise this would be welcome, but you have not provided such.
I don't need to - see the duck test, Its a takeover of a relatively small company on disadvantageous terms by a big powerful company that could and did set its own terms. You have mistaken an emollient name (merger) for the reality of the transaction.
So at this point I see only the following; that I have a position where I believe this encyclopaedia should state the known facts, and that you believe it should state the stance of other commentators.
Yes, I understand your position and how you are being, have been misled.
So it here that we arrive at your suggestion of text to accommodate the two views. I would suggest that the content remains as is, with the insertion that other third parties have expressed a view that Jaguar was purchased, with a reference to the Detroit news article, as follows:
"A merger with the British Motor Corporation followed in 1966, the resulting enlarged company now being renamed as British Motor Holdings (BMH) although some third parties have expressed that this was an acquisition...".
This is just a general Detroit daily local newspaper isn't it, no special interest in dealings in Warwickshire? Not really much different from Milwaukee then
Briefly, I do not agree to that statement being inserted in the Jaguar Cars article.
Please may I have access to the full text of the item in the Detroit News you have quoted
You might like to take a look at these links
WP:SOURCE and
WP:Reliable and
Third-party sources
Thanks,
Eddaido (
talk)
06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Edits to Rover 75
Dear Ericthebluebanana
I have noticed that you have undone an edit to the pages covering the Rover 75 and MG ZT. These regard the insertion of a link to a an external website, which you originally inserted in 2012. Under Wikipedia guidelines such links are regarded as promotional and therefore cannot be included. Please see WP:PROMOTION.
Dainase (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dainase
Hope I am replying in the right place here?
Thanks for your message. Not sure exactly why you are applying one rule to one club but not to others? The Owners Club still has it's entry ("The cars are still popular and actively supported by an active and growing Owners Club[15]") in the body of the article, although I note that you have removed the link to the V8 club, the two-sixties. Our club and the OC are both registered companies (the former I know, the latter as far as I know) and as such, either both should be allowed to be mentioned or neither. Can you explain your logic and your authority in removing these links? (btw, our original link was compromised by www.mgr-forums.com, a spin off from the OC formed by a disgruntled member. If this had not happened then no changes would have been made)
regards
Dave (aka Ericthebluebanana) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericthebluebanana ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)