Talk:Canada–United States Automotive Products Agreement

No delete

I don't think they should delete this page. As the article itself shows, the effects of the auto pact have definitely been an important part of Canadian (at least Ontario's) history. I was not around when this pact had any political power and hence was never taught about it in school; however, I was happy to develop a cursory knowledge about it through Wikipedia. It is this function of Wikipedia - providing information about almost obscure facts (among others) - that bring me to this site. For example: I could have learned about the Auto Pact just by googling it, but through Wikipedia I am know that I can find the information quickly and won't have to crawl through multiple websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.55 (talk • contribs) 22:20 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Two issues...

The article makes two questionable statements. It states that the Auto Pact meant that the country could not use the ECE Regulations, but reading that article clearly states that non-ECE countries weren't allowed to do this anyway, not until 1995. It also states that it meant there were no local car companies, but I'm not aware of many such vehicles in 1965 anyway, while I am aware of several that followed. I am inclined to remove both statements. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What was not allowed until 1995 was for non-European countries to join the 1958 Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be fitted and/or be used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these Prescriptions (Whew! Take a breath…). That is, non-European-countries were not welcome to participate in the development of the ECE regulations, nor were non-European countries entitled to have their type approvals recognised by signatories to the 1958 Agreement. But there was nothing on the European side barring non-European countries from recognising or applying ECE regulations, which have always been freely available for unrestricted use, and there was nothing on the European side preventing non-European countries from allowing or requiring ECE-spec vehicles and components. Many non-European countries did all of those things. Canada began accepting headlamps built to the relevant ECE standards as an alternative to headlamps built to the US standards, for example, in the mid-1970s. The prohibition on pursuing automotive trade agreements with countries other than the US didn't prevent Canada from adopting ECE regulations, but it effectively merged the US and Canadian vehicle markets, and since the US didn't (and doesn't) allow ECE-spec vehicles and parts, there was no impetus for Canada to do so, either. I have changed the wording in the article to make this point less confusing.

I'm not quite clear on your other objection, but based on my best effort to understand what you're saying, I don't agree with you. Prior to the Auto Pact, the Canadian operations of GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. were at least operating subsidiaries of the US parent companies, by which I mean the Canadian operations had a great deal of autonomy in all aspects of their operations: product planning and design, component specification and sourcing, manufacturing and production, branding and marketing, corporate policy, etc. After the Auto Pact, that ended; control of all the aforementioned aspects of operation reverted to the US parents, the Canadian operations became little more than branch plants, offices, and facilities that happened to be located in Canada, and there were no longer many significant or substantial differences between US- and Canadian-made vehicles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Canadian magazines from the early 1960s, I cannot see any differences in the cars and their US counterparts. Can you give some specific examples? Meanwhile, the wording in the article suggests that independent companies were locked out of the market, yet there's the Bricklin in Canada and the similar example of things like the Tucker in the US. Independent car companies were being squeezed out by industrial processes, not the Auto Pact. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mmm…no, what you think you understand of what you think you see in old magazines isn't going to get the job done. To educate yourself on the matter, read "Canadian Cars, 1946-1984 by R. Perry Zavitz, ©1985 Bookman publishing — Here's a start on finding a copy. While you wait for it to arrive, go see here and here and here and here and [here] and here and here and [here] and here and [here] and…! As for your concern about wording, what is your specific objection and what do you propose as an alternative? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make is that contemporary resources suggest that by the mid-1960s the Canadian car production system consisted largely of US designs rebadged with minor changes. The examples you have given all appear to support this. The Valiant lacked an alternator and had a different badge on the trunk. The Meteor was the US "body with a Mercury grille". The Acadian was the Chevy II. Fargo Trucks were "almost identical to Dodge trucks, save for trim and name". The Parisienne (my first car BTW) was the GM B.

So then, the statement that "It left the Canadian automobile industry firmly in the hands of American corporations" appears to be a non-sequitur, as this was the case before the Pact was signed. Right? And the complaint that "Canada no longer had any domestic car makers" appears to be equally null and void, as they were already long owned by the US companies. Then there's a statement that the Pact eviscerated engineering on this side of the border, but then in the very next section goes on to state this was already the case. I'm not at all sure why that's even there. And then there's this bit about ECE which makes no sense whatsoever, given the timing. Then it goes on to complain that the Ontario industries were the ones that benefited - although it appears that was all that existed in the first place.

And it's entirely referenced by a link to the CBC, the company that brought us such fine historical dramas like The Kid That Couldn't Miss and The Arrow, widely derided as works of utter fiction. Sorry, but this is a terrible mess that utterly stinks of NPOV. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably mean "stinks of POV", right? We should hope every article should "stink" of NPOV! (-; It looks like we might be at odds not over matters of fact (what happened, where, when, why, to and by whom, and what the effect was) but over matters of description: our definitions of "owned" (or "subsidiary" or "branch plant" or "independent", etc.) are probably quite divergent, and I bet that's what's causing this friction. You perceive no substantial difference in Canadian cars and carmakers pre- vs. post-APTA, while I do perceive such differences (and we probably disagree over what means "substantial", too).

Okeh, let's figure out how to improve the article, then. The present text is rather well supportable by the Zavitz book, one of the few on its subject (remember, the Canadian market is, demographically, smaller than that of the US state of California). It presently has zero actual citations to the text, and that needs fixing post-haste. Regrettably, my copy of it is about 4850 km away from my present location! Hope someone else with a copy will be able to step in sooner than I will be able to. And certainly Whatever other good RSs are out there, ought to be used for the well-supported expansion of this article. What've you got?

I'm finding it a little baffling that understanding of the ECE vs. USA regulation issue seems to continue to be problematic for you. To me, it seems step-by-step clear, but perhaps my work in that industry makes it seem a great deal more intuitive and simple than it might seem to others. I will keep trying; please help me understand what you don't understand and I will do my best to explain it and support the explanation -- here and in the article text.

I can't afford you any traction with your bizarre slagging of the Canadian Broadcasting Company as unreliable by dint of programs that apparently you didn't find entertaining, if you saw them, and I have to say it looks a little unseemly for an admin to be letting his tone run away with her and her temper run away from him. There may be genuine work that needs doing here; why do you make a spectacle of yourself like that? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well lets start simple, with a single sentance - "It left the Canadian automobile industry firmly in the hands of American corporations".

I posit that this statement was true before the Pact as well, so the "it left" is wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems a fair and well founded objection. It would be much more precise to say that APTA transferred control of Canadian automaking operations to their US parent corporations, substantially reducing the autonomy of the Canadian operations, don't you agree? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. To me, "building US cars and changing the badge on the trunk" would suggest zero autonomy. Zero autonomy before, zero autonomy after. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are comfortable summarising the differences in pre-APTA Canadian vs. US cars as "changing the badge on the trunk", you have not sufficiently researched the matter. I reiterate my suggestion to read the linked book on the subject. Meanwhile, I am making the proposed change, which is far closer to accuracy than the present text. I am having a bit of a struggle to assume your good faith here; it seems to me your argument is founded on poor understanding and on no sources, and there remains the matter of your strange slagging of the CBC. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now stated twice what my concern is, and in both cases you have declined to offer any direct response. If there is a lack of sources here, it is in the article. Please do no question my motives again, my record speaks for itself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Volvo

Volvo piggy backed onto the agreement with the opening of their Halifax plant. I put in a reference. Nfjb (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Per WP:TITLE, I have moved this article from Auto Pact to Canada—United States Automotive Products Agreement. "Auto Pact" is an informal, colloquial, unofficial, ambiguous term, unintelligible to most non-Canadians and virtually all those outside North America. The new article title is the actual title of the subject of the article and is used in Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia (relevant per WP:TITLE provision regarding what other encyclopædias call their articles). The formal title will encourage expansion and improvement of this article as they encounter its title in lists, for example of trade-related articles. Some may object to the new title on grounds of length, and I share the "ew" factor, but consider also this article, and this one and this one. We aren't averse to long titles. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Links

Editors should keep in mind two principles:

• From Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations:

"When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. This clears the way for later use of the abbreviation alone"

• From WP:EGG:

"Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense."

Ground Zero | t 03:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I find your tone here a little high-handed. Perhaps you didn't mean to come off that way, but "Editors should keep in mind…" unduly evinces an authority over editors. I don't share your putative astonishment at landing on NHTSA when clicking on U.S. auto safety regulations (or similar piped text); it is a pipe that makes perfect sense—just take a look at the first sentence of the second paragraph (i.e., the first substantive paragraph) of NHTSA. This present article is not about NHTSA, and so we needn't necessarily spell out "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" because we're not really talking about NHTSA, we're talking about US car safety regulations. NHTSA happens to write, promulgate, and enforce them, but that's tangential—hence the piped link. That's my position; neither of us is necessarily wrong or right, but I believe you are being slightly too dogmatic in your application of the principle of least astonishment, and I believe you are misapplying the abbreviation protocol. We may or may not come to agreement (i.e., consensus) on these points, but the text you favored was unnecessarily awkward. As a compromise for now, I have modified the text while leaving the entire name of NHTSA spelled out in accordance with your preference. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it that way. All editors should keep in mind Wikipedia policies and style generally, but I did not mean to sound like I was lecturing or hectoring any editors in particular. I was a little taken aback that you reverted my edit without discussing it on the talk page, but only a little. I took the next logical step of beginning the discussion here, and I am glad that you engaged.

I disagree with your conclusion about the connection between NHTSA and US auto safety regulations. The latter are only one component of the former's mandate -- it has several other functions, so yes, I think some readers would be confused by the link. I think it is prudent to err on the side of clarity in situations like this.

The reference in my edit summary to spelling out acronyms on first use was an explanation of spelling out NAFTA, which may not be understood by non-North American readers.

Finally, I don't think that the re-write that I did had an awkward text flow - I think it is straightforward and logical, and should not pose a problem for the average reader. Your new version works just as well, and I don't think that changing it again would be any improvement, so I don't propose to do so. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)