Talk:Catalytic converter/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Catalytic Converters - The Book

Since my body won't let me work any more, and I've now been out of the business for over two years, I'm going to write a book on Catalytic Converters. I'm one of the few people who isn't in the business who qualifies as an expert, understands the chemistry, the physics, and how engines work. Because I worked in the business for over ten years, I have names in my rolodex for people who work at every company, to help me fill in the blanks.

Besides, after seeing some of the stuff that has happened on this page over the years, well you folks need a reference that you can use that is reliable. I'm posting this here because I know what I think should be in the book, but I don't know what you think should be there. What questions would you like to see answered? Let me know on my talk page. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Deciding what should or shouldn't be on this talk page

I don't know who it was who decided to delete a large chunk of text from this page, since whoever it was only showed up as an IP address. I didn't even notice that the deletion had been done until today when I was looking at a reversion on the article page, popped over to the discussion page, and for no reason at all hit history.

I do know that I am annoyed. Very annoyed. Do this again and I'll talk to an administrator about getting your IP address blocked. You may not like how the discussion has been going, and it might not meet the basics of how Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work, however it is performing a purpose. And that is why we are having it.

The information from this discussion is going towards improving this article. Your actions, well, they are pretty well useless. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, calm down. Take a look at the talk page history and you'll see the IP's move was adequately (and correctly) justified. The text that was removed [1] wasn't about this article, it was about catalytic converters per se, and that is not appropriate material for this talk page. Look at the top of the talk page and you'll see a notice that this is not a forum for discussing catalytic converters, but rather is for working on the article itself, and that material not apposite to that narrow goal can and may be removed. There's nothing to be annoyed about here; the quarrel started out barely on topic (you raised the idea of a book about catalytic converters and asked for people to bring you some ideas on your own talk page, which was okeh), and quickly strayed far from any semblance of relevance to this article. If you want to have a debate of that nature somewhere on Wikipedia, it would need to be on a personal talk page/s. Not because anyone's out to get you, not because someone doesn't like how a discussion is going, but because this article talk page simply is not the right place for it. It's a pretty simple matter of basic Wikipedia policy; see WP:TALK for more detail. If you want the deleted conversation available to the public, copy it from the pre-deletion rev of this page and put it on your talk page. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I happen to disagree. In part my disagreement is because the person in question did not drop in and talk about it first, but just made a decision without consulting anyone, and in part it is because the person who did it was not signed in, so that anyone who disagreed could not address them about this on their talk page. However we do need to look at archiving again at some point, the page is starting to get long. One option would be to install the Mizabot III template, I use it on my talk page, and it works nicely. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your disagreement, then, is with Wikipedia policy and protocol. No discussion is needed in a case like this; content inappropriate for the talk page is subject to removal without prior notice. That's just the way it is. I don't necessarily think that's good or bad, it just…is. As for the IP, I'm definitely not keen on anonymous IPs being allowed to come and go as they please, but that's just how it is, too. I don't think we need to install an automatic archiving bot on this page; it doesn't get enough traffic to warrant it. But yep, looks like another archive chapter was warranted; I've gone ahead and done so. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't disagree with Wikipedia policy. I don't believe that the discussion in question fell outside of the range allowed for. The aim is to improve the article. From the discussion we found out a lot of information about attitudes towards catalytic converters by the uneducated. I'm researching it, and I'll be adding a section titled 'Attitudes Towards Emission Control Systems by The Uneducated' when finished. Or something like that.

We also found out that there is something odd happening in the background, which I'm not going into details with publicly until I've investigated it. If I'm right about what I will find, this is a matter for law enforcement outside of Wikipedia. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is certainly taking a strange turn with this vague but ominous allusion that some nebulous "we" (who is included in "we"?) have discovered some kind of illegal activity which is somehow germane to a Wikipedia article about catalytic converters…!

Fact is, the discussion about whether it's a good idea to randomly dismantle, disable, and bypass various grossly-misunderstood pieces of of an automobile's emissions system is not apposite to this article. I like the idea for a chapter in your book about ignorant morons' attitudes towards emission controls; I've seen about as much of this kind of idiocy as you have, but the fact remains, this is a discussion for your talk page because it concerns your book, not this article. I really don't see what's so hard about this for you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Whether removal of large amounts of text was appropriate ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Catalytic converter and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Howdy! While I do believe that the talk page should be a fairly free-flowing exchange of ideas and opinions, any edits should indeed be germane to the primary goal of improving the article. The deleted text was certainly edging across that line. Some discussion of original research was present, too. The bottom line is that, to me, the talk page for the catalytic converter article is better without the deleted text, but that such discussions can be helpful in a general way and would be great if on a users talk page. See also: —Hiobazard (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fact is, the discussion about whether it's a good idea to randomly dismantle, disable, and bypass various grossly-misunderstood pieces of of an automobile's emissions system is not apposite to this article.

Actually it is very important to this article. I can't get into the research this week or the next (I'm in the middle of publishing a couple of books) but as soon as those books are out the door I have two weeks free in which to work. I am fairly certain that I know where to look, and know what is going on, and it is rather disturbing. Think Fake Canadian Internet Pharmacy selling the automotive equivalent of penile enhancements. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What is its operating temperature?

The article contains many facts about catalytic converters but I didn't see anywhere what its operating temperature actually is. Did I miss it? If not, shouldn't it be included? Mr. Shawn H. Corey (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't see an operating temperature for a catalytic converter because there is no single answer. That is like asking how heavy a car is. You'd look at me like I was an idiot, because I didn't specify which car, a Lincoln MKZ or a Honda Civic. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Important source

Having just cleaned up what looks like a very hamhanded, plagiaristic attempt at adding material to this article, I am out of time to do more right now. However, I am parking a crucial source here for later inclusion. It is Tim Palucka's 2004 article from "Invention & Technology" Magazine, entitled "Doing the Impossible". It's no longer available at I&T's website, but it is archived here and ought to be heavily leaned on for our article here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You got this because of the entry I submitted, but you will not help me with my entries. I have 3 more VERY valid sources as well. Just as valid as Tim Palucka's (even though in reality, public sources who do not state their citations are not the best sources) I have things from the SAE encyclopedia and more. I have already looked through the link that you posted for citations, it did not help much. I have the entry written on a word document that includes all of the history listed here, but ALL CITED. On the document, I have line by line references to almost every sentence. Let me post my entry and show me how to cite it on this crazy navigation site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.232.27 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism, ref deletion

Hist406-11Hdoukmaj (talk · contribs), you appear interested in adding substantial material to the article, and that's terrific and definitely welcome. But dumping a (very) rough draft into the article as you did is uncoöperative and not very helpful, particularly since you removed valid content and references in the process and what you added contains a great deal of text lifted directly from the Palucka article published under copyright in Invention and Technology magazine. Content that violates any copyrights can and will be deleted; plagiarism is not permitted here. I've moved your contribution to a subpage of your own user page here so that you can please work on it, eliminate the plagiarism problem, and format and integrate the refs properly—preferably with live links to the actual sources, not just copies of bibliography items you find listed elsewhere. See CITE for how to do this; use Refgen for quick, easy, complete ref markup generation. When your contribution is in reasonably decent shape, please put it back in the article. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am most definitely not trying to plagiarize. I have done hours of research with SOLID sources but am just having a very difficult time with the navigation of the website. It is my first time using wikipedia. Instead of being so de-constructive with your criticism, why don't you ask what it is I am trying to do. Yes, I have used Tim Palucka's article, but the format that I have on it on my word uses all of the referencing that I am trying to do on this page. Unfortunately, to no avail I am clearly struggling. I am trying to connect my references in the text with a number to the bottom of the article in the references. So no, I am not trying to plagiarize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist406-11Hdoukmaj (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you don't mean to plagiarise, but when you insert large blocks of text verbatim from a published, copyrighted article that is exactly what you are doing, and you may not do it. Click the "Refgen" link I gave you to be taken to the automatic reference generator which lets you put in all the relevant information and then spits out properly-formatted reference markup text. You then copy this markup text and insert it after the punctuation of the sentences you wish to support with that reference. You do the work up in the article text; the site automagically parses that markup text and puts the correct footnote after the assertion and the applicable reference, properly formatted, in the ref list at the bottom of the article. So for example, Here is an assertion I wish to support with a reference to a particular book. Here's another, and here's yet a third.<ref name=particularbook> {{cite journal | title = Flannel vs. Wool: Lint Source Smackdown Challenge | journal = Bellybutton Lint Collector's Digest | date = 1966-12-11 | first = Deepak | last = Chopra | volume = 21 | issue = 3 | pages = 31-33| id = | url = http://xkcd.com/978/ | accessdate = 2011-12-13}}</ref>

This will render as follows in the article text:

Here is an assertion I wish to support with a reference to a particular book. Here's another, and here's yet a third.

And down in the reference list, there'll be this:

Chopra, Deepak (1966-12-11). "Flannel vs. Wool: Lint Source Smackdown Challenge". Bellybutton Lint Collector's Digest. 21 (3): 31–33. Retrieved 2011-12-13.

Please keep working on your sizeable contribution in your user space (linked above) and then when it's no longer full of copyrighted text and such, give it another try here. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

edit suggestion

The reference link on reference 12 should be changed to this link because this is the full text version of the article. The older link is a reduced version of the article that lacks critical information.

Can someone make the changes - I couldn't seem to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.34 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

First Year Of Use in Production

In the article it states that the first year of use in production is 1975. There is no documentary evidence to back this up. I have tagged this for citation. My tag was removed. I am tagging it again. Where is the documentary evidence proving that 1975 is the correct year? I am virtually certain that 1974 is the correct year, and I'm looking for evidence - I'm calling someone who have internal contacts at General Motors. Let's see what cards you have to play. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your tag was removed because I provided multiple high-quality reliable sources to robustly support the 1975 assertion -- and there are hundreds more high-quality reliable sources supporting 1975 as the correct year. None for 1974 that I've found; if your guy who has internal contacts at GM can provide reliable support (as defined for this encyclopedia) for your recollection, great, provide it and it will be assessed on its merits and incorporated if and as appropriate. We are not playing at cards or any other kind of game; we are writing an encyclopædia, and you may not remove valid refs simply because they do not support what you think you are sure you believe you seem to recall. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I do not see those documents referenced anywhere in the text of the article. Cite them by the date. As to my comments about the date being incorrect, I have called my contact. I was not able to reach him as he was traveling, but I have left a message for him. Once I get through to him, I'll get the contact details for the staff at General Motors who can supply the documentation on the 1974 installations. This is not me dreaming. There were specific design differences between the 1974 and 1975 model year Camaro automobiles. One specific difference, the back window, was highly noticeable. The 1975 had a wrap around rear window, with narrower rear quarter posts. My 1974 had wider rear quarter posts, and was a pain in the neck to back into parking spaces. My 1974 car was fitted with the narrower gas filler so that it could only take unleaded gasoline. It had a Y-Pipe style exhaust which feed into the catalytic converter. After the converter a single pipe lead back to the muffler, which had dual exhaust pipes leading back to the bumper illustration. I know this exhaust system really well. I replaced it several times, and it was the one of the worst designed parts on the car. The worst designed part was the Air Injection Reactor. I will say that it outlasted the warranty period. But not by much. The cost to replace it was exorbitant. I ended up removing it, and installing Grade 8 National Fine bolts into the holes in the exhaust manifold. The car got nicknamed Frankenstein after that. FYI, in Canada removing the emissions system was legal at that time, as Environment Canada is responsible for writing emission standards for new vehicles only. The provinces are responsible for in use vehicles, and the Province of Ontario didn't write any in-use emission rules until about the year 1990 (going by memory). UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is growing tiresome. It certainly looks as if you "don't see" the perfectly conspicuous refs after the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph because you don't want to see them. Have another, more careful look. They're refs #2, 3, 4, and 5 in this article. I'm sure you're not dreaming, you're just misremembering. Your linked illustration, I note, bears absolutely no support for the claim that it depicts a 1974 exhaust system, and for that matter it bears no evidence of being for a Camaro. Your recall of Ontario's emission regulation chronology is likewise faulty, and the fact that you were in Canada makes it even more improbable that you had a one-of-none '74 Camaro with a catalytic converter; because Canadian emission standards were less stringent than those of the US, the catalytic converter was not required in Canada. Many Ford and Chrysler models came without converters in Canada until 1976 or later. Unleaded fuel availability was not universal in Canada by the time the '75s hit the showroom floors, and car buyers in areas without unleaded gas stayed away from GM vehicles, eventually prompting GM, who sold catalyst-equipped cars in Canada starting in '75 (not in '74, thank you very much), to permit Canadian buyers to opt to delete the converter at the time of new-vehicle purchase. Want proof? Sure thing, it looks like this: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Now until you can match the kind of reliable support provided by these cites and the ones already in the article, spare us your talespinning and handwaving and cocksure insistence about what you're sure you remember of what you think you saw in 1974. The standard for inclusion of material here is not what we think we know, it's what we can prove. 1975 has been proven, and that really is that; you'll simply have to adapt your recollection to actual reality. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation Request Filled

Under "Negative aspects" I noticed the following:

In the U.S. and many other jurisdictions, it is illegal to remove or disable a catalytic converter for any reason other than its direct and immediate replacement. It is a violation of Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the 1990 Clean Air Act for a vehicle owner to remove a converter from a vehicle, except in order to replace it with another converter. Section 203(a)(3)(B) makes it illegal for any person to sell or to install any part that would bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any emission control system, device, or design element. Vehicles without functioning catalytic converters generally fail emission inspections.

In my opinion the sentences after the "Citation Needed" fulfill the request for citation, so I've removed it. Do we have any others that have been fulfilled, but not removed? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the sentences following the CN tag are additional assertions. They are not citations. The tag will need to stay for now, pending provision of a proper citation. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I misread it then. I am up to my ears in alligators - sold a bunch of writing. So I'm may not be able to help regularly. I'm still committed to doing the page on Diesel Oxidation Catalysts though. Have a new software package for writing that makes putting things together nice. It doesn't wikify, but it makes the research easier. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I modified the wording of "owners" to "repair shops" to match the valid citation you found (the EPA regulations state that they apply to "any person engaged in the business of repairing, servicing, selling, leasing, or trading motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, or who operates a fleet of motor vehicles"). My understanding is that the EPA can regulate interstate commerce (businesses) but not the actions of private owners.--SwineFlew? (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3