Talk:Chrysler/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following content be added to the article?

Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.

References

Hugh (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comments? Hugh (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WP:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. Hugh (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) update to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles Hugh (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Hugh (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC) notice to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada Hugh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit Hugh (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Trucks Hugh (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:RSN Hugh (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:ORN Hugh (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC) notice to WP:WikiProject Michigan Hugh (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, please stop spamming notices Your notices since April 18th have become excessive. Certainly additional notices after the RfC period is over have moved from appropriate to inappropriate notification.[1] It's time to let it go. Springee (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your engagement in this dispute resolution effort. Good discussion. We will extend the RfC comment period by one week in order to facilitate broadening community participation on this proposal beyond the four (4) new editorial voices who have so far joined our discussion on this article talk page and to more accurately assess community consensus. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to keep this discussion open for any longer. There is no general agreement to grant any extensions. More than one month is sufficient for this topic. An individual contributor cannot keep moving the goal simply because they do not seem to accept the outcome. It is time to move on and expend efforts into more productive tasks to improve the encyclopedia, rather continuing this discussion. Additional time will not make these particular and recent product recalls and opinions now suddenly change to make them significant and noteworthy enough to be included within an article that should be an outline of the almost 100 year history of this corporation. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Outcome? What outcome? Five to four !votes is not consensus. If we don't leave this open in the hopes that more participation will lead to strong consensus one way or the other, then it needs to move to a whole new venue to be resolved. That doesn't sound fun. Keeping a discussion open is not moving the goal post. Moving the goal post would be changing the criteria for inclusion of a paragraph from NPOV objections to "noteworthy enough". WP:NOTEWORTHY makes clear that it's an error to claim that content must be "notable" in order to be included in an article. It's an error to claim that WP:NOTNEWS is a reason to expunge whole sections of articles; nothing in WP:NOTNEWS supports this at all. Both of those deal mostly with article creation, not content.

The fact that Chrysler has had multiple bankruptcies, bailouts, and ignoble changes of ownership cries out for explanation. Why Chrysler and not GM or Ford? There is no omniscient explanation, only opinions. The data from JD Power, the opinions of Consumer Reports, the judgement of analysts and historians is exactly what belongs in this, or any article. There is no policy to support expunging any whiff of criticism until it is perfectly balanced -- an impossible standard to meet -- only the goal that we must "strive for" neutrality. Wikipedia:Five pillars repeats that point three times. In order for content to strive for perfection, the content first needs to exist. Stonewalling is the death of open, collaborative editing.

Instead of edit warring over whether or not to close this discussion, you should recognize the lack of consensus for closing it, and request a decision by an third party Admin, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions. Or should I revert your revert? That would be silly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RfCs are normally closed after 30 days unless there is consensus to reopen....that doesn't close the discussion, just remove the RfC link. I was wrong as to the count, as I ignored the "me too" posts, as should anyone closing the discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

An RfC is dispute resolution, please respect our project's processes. There is no deadline WP:NODEADLINE; the discussion is active, and there is no reason to close this discussion at this time. CZmarlin, you need not fear coverage in our article of recalls; the content proposed above by this RfC includes no mention of recalls; please help us all focus on content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please keep notices brief as was requested here [2].

Oppose: A Google news search for Chrysler turns up ~3.5 million hits. So based on a pure measure of weight the recall articles cited above are insignificant. However, beyond that, in the discussions above this RfC it's clear that most editors understand that when you are dealing with a topic as big as one of the largest and most significant industrial organizations of the last 100 years we can't include everything even if it was discussed recently in the news. We must maintain a long term, perspective and avoid issues of WP:NOTNEWS. Recalls and other such information is valid material for a car company's parent article but only in the most significant cases such as the Toyota recall which ended up before Congress. The material in question simply doesn't rise to the level of significant (lacks WP:weight) when compared to the scope of this article. It would be like insisting that WP's World War 2 article discuss the failure to rescue the USS Indianapolis sailors. Yes, the ship's sinking is widely discussed in RSs but it is an insignificant topic in perspective to the total war. Springee (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Too big for "Reception"? The article is about a manufacturer, but currently has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of is products. The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires us to ignore noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; I believe we have room for some content summarizing the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products. A manufacturer may not be so big or have such a long history that there is no room in Wikipedia for content summarizing general comments regarding its products reliability, quality, and reception WP:YESPOV. Does Chrysler have a well-known reputation regarding its quality? Yes, it does. And it is not in our article. It's embarrassing. Readers cannot not take this article seriously. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So we should include reviews of the DeSoto models? What about the 1936 lineup? Should we talk about that? You don't seem grieved that the article fails to mention how Chrysler's 1984 minivans set the standard for minivan configurations for the next 30 years. You don't seem to care about Chrysler's impact on the full size pickup truck market with both the "semi-truck" styling and the Cummins engine branding. I'm sorry you think a brake booster recall is encyclopedic. That might explain why you so frequently find your edits being opposed by others. By the way, repeating your failed arguments doesn't make them better. However, it is WP:TEND and a sign of a disruptive editor. Springee (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and the content summarizes sources generalizing across the entire product line, rather than at any particular make or model. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD, your arguments are not at all convincing. Note that no one thus far has supported your POV. That should be a strong hint. Please stop WP:bludgeoning the talk page. Springee (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. The proposed content is highly relevant and due weight. The article is about a manufacturer, but currently our article has no content about the reception by consumers of its products or independent evaluations of its products. Meanwhile, vast noteworthy reliable sources include content related to general comments about the quality, reliability, and reception of its products. Reliable sources cited in support of this content exhibit a strong consensus spanning decades, from the 1990's to the present, and generalizing across the entire product line (rather than specific to any particular make or model). The exclusion of this topic from the current article requires ignoring multiple noteworthy reliable sources, and so is non-neutral WP:DUE. The article is currently at Prose size 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size", about 56% of when length might be considered an issue WP:PAGESIZE; we have room for some highly relevant content summarizing noteworthy reliable sources on the reception and evaluations of this manufacturer's products WP:YESPOV. A subject simply may not have such scale or have such a august history that a neutral article is impossible. The reputation of the quality of this manufacturer is a prominent aspect of this manufacturer, and readers cannot take our article seriously if this content is excluded. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC) The current article violates policy, specifically, our neutrality pillar; please see WP:CLOSE#Policy. The current article non-neutrally excludes numerous noteworthy reliable sources and currently includes no facts, events, or significant opinions which might be considered unfavorable or unflattering to the subject. The RfC proposed content partially addresses this violation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC) As per WP:CLOSE, formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator is respectfully requested, since neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: Extensive polemical statements do not contribute value to the discussion. Even if referenced, the recent recalls or rankings (that originate mainly from one source, but are extensively replicated by numerous "reliable" outlets) are not notable to the main topic of this WP article, which serves to provide readers with an outline of the almost 100 years of an automaker's history, operations, products. CZmarlin (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For example, a quick and brief sample of views on the company's recent operations and reception include the following:

• Rare alliance successes share key traits, by Neal E. Boudette, August 24, 2015, Automotive News.
• How the 2014 Jeep Cherokee Helped Chrysler Trounce the Market by John Rosevear, The Motley Fool.
• Chrysler Successes in Consumer Reports and Vehicle Sales, November 8, 2011, Enprecis.

Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

CZmarlin, thank you for your comment. We are in agreement that the appropriate level of coverage in our article of the reception and independent evaluations of this manufacturer is not none. I look forward to collaborating with you on improving the neutrality of this article by bringing new sources and content covering reception and evaluations.

You wrote "one source." Sources for the above proposed content include The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, generally accepted by most Wikipedians as highly noteworthy and highly reliable sources, as well as the Los Angeles Times, The Detroit News, CNBC, the Business Insider, and the Automotive News. May I respectfully ask, in your view is Consumer Reports a noteworthy reliable source for independent product evaluations and assessments of customer reception? Please note how WP:USEBYOTHERS clearly conveys noteworthiness and reliability.

For decades, multiple reliable sources have commented on the quality and reliability of Chrysler's product line as a whole, and that is the specific topic of the content proposed by this RfC. We agree particular Chrysler makes and models have been recognized in some categories in some model years; as you know each has their own article.

May I respectfully ask, how would you summarize all these sources? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The reputable sources that you list - such as the all newspapers, other mass publications and media outlets, and even the industry trade publication, Automotive News - do not perform road tests, collect defect or recall data, nor do they conduct actual analysis of the vehicles. They typically report the results that have been conducted by organizations such as Consumer Reports or JD Powers. Therefore, the original source for quality or performance remains the same regardless of how many citations you can find on the same subject. Furthermore, you do not seem to comprehend that the particular product recalls you seem to focus on and the other current information, do not rise to the level of notability in the overall history, operations, and products during the almost 100 year history of this automaker. There is no valid reason to include reviews of only the recent products without also providing a careful and referenced presentation of Chrysler's market reception rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction of all its product lines. starting from 1925. In other words, for your findings to be appropriate in this article, they should summarize the reputation and market reception for all the years and product lines. You cannot "cherry pick" what you think is important to include in this article. CZmarlin (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"starting from 1925" Your collaboration on improving the coverage of customer reception of independent evaluations would be welcome. Good point, the RfC content summarizes the consensus of noteworthy reliable sources in recent decades, we can easily clarify, point taken. A comprehensive treatment of the last century is not necessary before we may begin adding well-sourced, neutral content on recent decades; Wikipedia is never done, there is no deadline, there is always other stuff. We agree that no content related to customer reception and independent evaluations is non-neutral, and in fact a major embarrassment undermining our credibility with anyone coming to this article with even a vague familiarity with this manufacturer. We cannot ignore a broad consensus in reliable sources because it is unflattering to a subject. The RfC proposed content makes no mention of recalls. The sources for the content proposed by the RfC include highly noteworthy, highly reliable secondary sources; this is the very essence of the notion of noteworthiness which is the basis for our due weight policy in Wikipedia; we are summarizing what noteworthy reliable sources have to say about Chrysler quality; were the same content sourced solely, directly to the primary reports of the testing labs Consumer Reports, J. D. Power and Associates, and the American Customer Satisfaction Index, it might well be vulnerable to criticism on noteworthiness grounds. Thank you for your comments. How would you summarize the sources we have compiled so far? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

CZmarlin, the third of the three sources you recently brought to article talk appears to be a company blog of a vendor to Chrysler. I would please like to hear your thoughts on how we might best summarize the sources we have gather together so far. I would be interested in your evaluation of the due weight in this article of the 2009 comment attributed to the CEO of Chrysler specific to the Jeep Cherokee from 2009, excerpted below. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, oppose The extant article is about the corporation, not about the cars that it manufactures. Damotclese (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Our policy WP:YESPOV asks us to include critical analyses and significant points of view, as well as facts, as represented in reliable sources. The article currently includes substantial content on the products manufactured by this manufacturer; for example,

The 2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee very soon became the most awarded SUV - Ever.

...sourced to the CEO. The above RfC proposed content is generalized across the entire product line of the manufacturer over recent decades, not to particular makes or models or model years. May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for your view that general content regarding the quality, reliability, and reception of a manufacturer's products is off-topic in an article on a manufacturer? Hugh (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Damotclese, thank you again for your participation in our feedback request service. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Damotclese, I would like to please hear your thoughts on the current article content excerpted above; should it be removed? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:HughD, There is no point in repeating the same argument over and over and over again. This "discussion" serves no purpose because you seem not to accept the independent input of other contributors. Please also understand that your position is contrary to several Wikipedia policies that include WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you please elaborate regarding how WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV apply here in your view? The best I can tell the content proposed by the RfC is a reasonable neutral paraphrase of multiple noteworthy neutral reliable sources. What do you think? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The RFC feedback request service bot sent me. This is exactly the kind of criticism which corporate PR departments hate with every fiber of their biased being, but which is absolutely essential to uphold the WP:NPOV pillar policy of presenting both positive and negative information to obtain a properly balanced article. This principle is so important that WP:LEAD requires that the most significant controversies should be summarized in articles' introductions, which would be appropriate with a sentence or two here. EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article needs to be a calm and balanced presentation of information. This article covers about 100 years of history during which there have been achievements as well as controversies in the firm's businesses and operations. The bankruptcy problems, for example, are noteworthy in Chrysler's history and take up much of the article's introductory lead section. There is no mention in the lead about its other positive business accomplishments. There is no "balance" by referring to the company's numerous engineering and product innovations. The lead does not mention Chrysler's role for the war effort and the space programs. These major endeavors deserve at least a sentence or two in the lead. Moreover, it is wrong to claim that WP serves as a venue to counter corporate PR departments. The recent and rather ordinary product recalls along with the reports about certain quality rankings pertain to particular individual products. As has been mentioned numerous times by several contributors, they are not an important aspect concerning this corporation's one century of business history. CZmarlin (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"...reports about certain quality rankings pertain to particular individual products." Please see the content proposed by the above RfC. The content proposed by the above RfC refers to the entire Chrysler product line. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

We look forward to collaborating with you on bringing new reliable sources and noteworthy content regarding Chrysler's positive business accomplishments, numerous engineering and product innovations, and role in the war effort and the space programs; there is always other stuff. The article is currently Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4455 words) "readable prose size"; about 56% of where article length begins to be a concern as per our guideline WP:SIZERULE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:HughD, Do you really mean to say the recall information has so much weight and apples to all of this firm's operations over its entire 100 years of business? Please realize that this company has more than automobile product lines. Even if examining the current corporation (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles - FCA), its businesses include various vehicle lines as well as other interralated operations such as marketing and financial services, production systems. parts and components, as well as iron and castings. You focus only on the current aspects of "reception and rankings" that is not relevant in the overall history of this corporation, and just keep raising them over and over again. You do not respect the views and explanations of other contributors to this article. Repeating your failed arguments does not make them stronger. Thank you for inviting me to improve the article. However, I have a limited time available to contribute for WP and this particular never-ending "discussion" is not productive. CZmarlin (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This lacks a where, a why, and looks like unusual WP:OR. The RFC does not say what section it would insert into, whether it is for the lead, a new section, or going too an existing section -- and none of those seem suitable places, so it lacks a WHERE to put it at. The proposal did not go into the reasoning that crafted this or makes it notable so lacks a WHY to add it. Finally, it just seems a rambling listing of randomly collected criticisms assembled with no notability or stated point or clear writing narrative to it, so it's a badly done and WP:OR, one that is also unusual because the Ford or [Mazda]] articles do not have content about quality reviews. So, for multiple reasons, no. Markbassett (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

What section would you recommend for this content? A section such as "Reception" is appropriate in an article on a manufacturer who manufactures products for retail consumption.

Could you please elaborate on your view that our policy WP:Original research is applicable to the content proposed by the RfC? The proposed content is a reasonable paraphrase of multiple noteworthy reliable sources. How might you paraphrase the sources so as to avoid original research?

Regarding your point in reporting here at Talk:Chrysler possible deficiencies in other articles in our coverage of reliable sources, in my experience arguments of this form are not useful given WP:OTHERSTUFF. What is your experience? Are you articulating that WP:WikiProject Automobiles has an undocumented local due weight policy by which automobile manufacturers are a special category of retail manufacturer, such that Wikipedia coverage of the reception by consumers or evaluation of its products by independent testing is undue?

Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per EllenCT. This information looks important for neutrality and completeness. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support WP:PEACOCK is an example of Wikipedia's strong consensus for preferring "facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance" rather than "unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance". That's why a media list like Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century is a desirable citation in an article. The JD Power survey is one of the most influential and cited statistics about car company reputation and public reaction. Magazine rankings and awards are also important. In general, any Wikipedia article should try to 1) tell the reader what the subject is, and 2) tell the reader what the subject's relationship is with the rest of the world. Critical reception is key to that, far more valuable in an article than bland lists of obscure data and minutiae that tend to collect in an article. The meaningless lists of manager names and various financial numbers are far closer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE than rankings, awards, and attributed opinions of subject experts and critics.

  Could this be more balanced? Could it be expanded to cite more postitive and nuanced critical reception? Could it be expanded to trace the JD Power and other rankings over a longer span of time? Yes, of course. Any article could grow in these ways. That's not a reason to nuke any and all critical reception until it has perfect balance. Maybe on a biography of a living person you could make that case, but a company is not a living person and such stringent rules of balance do not apply. Put it in the article so that others can go to work and build the encyclopedia. There needs to be something there before "anybody can edit" it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Dennis Bratland. An encyclopedia serves to provide information in a neutral (as you describe it, bland) way to readers. It is not a forum to either promote or vilify the subject matter. This is also why this article does not contain a long list of the firm's industry firsts, nor all the various accolades and awards that Chrysler and its products have earned over the years. It attempts to provide balance considering the article is a brief summary of almost a century of the firm's operations. It is also interesting to note that you find "meaningless" the names of the top executives and the financial numbers. These are the best indicators of corporate operations. The reality is that those numbers and people describe the condition of an organization. They are more important than any of the outside "experts" or any opinions that happen to be gathered by a company like JD Powers. Rather than being indiscriminate, financial data is critical to the firm, its investors, and all other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and the communities in which it has operations. The brief financial condition information allows readers to know how viable it is, how it balances profit with costs, as well as how it measures up to other companies. The people who make up the top management team are indispensable to its current situation and determine a company's future strategy and operations. For example, the chief executive of a company is like the pilot of an airplane; thus, knowing who they are and their experience is critical to the success or failure of the flight. Nevertheless, you have not made a solid case how a few product recalls and a selected set of product rankings taken at a point in time truly pertain to the entire history of the company. During its almost one hundred years, this company has been evaluated by numerous experts and seen both positive and negative reviews. Every automaker has encountered recalls, and the examples included in this discussion are not noteworthy and only pertain to specific units, not the company's entire production. Moreover, these selected outside opinions regarding product quality perceptions also do not add encyclopedic "facts" for the purposes of describing the company in this article. CZmarlin (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I started to write a reply, but I realized that my only answer is to take your comment, and put a {{citation needed}} tag after every single sentence. You have made a long series of unsupported assertions, that, in general, flatly contradict Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as contradict verifiable facts about the world in general. The accusation "you have not made a solid case how a few product recalls and a selected set of product rankings taken at a point in time truly pertain to the entire history of the company" is particularly offensive and slanderous, essentially accusing me of saying almost the exact opposite of what I just said. You are using vague weasel words such as "noteworthy" and "encyclopedic" which serve as hand waving to gloss over the lack of an actual argument here. I don't even know where to begin. All I can suggest to anyone is to start with Wikipedia:Five pillars and work their was through each of the major policies and note they say to write articles in a way that is nothing like what you have just asserted. A glance at our WP:Featured Articles on companies, like BAE Systems, Cracker Barrel, NeXT, etc. will show that Wikipedia's best content does in fact contain all sorts of this kind of information. Look at the Featured Article about another car company, Holden. We read of "industry firsts", public controversies, media assessments, problems with the product, notable achievements. All the things you're calming are not "encyclopedic" or "noteworthy", whatever those words mean. Sorry. Nope. Nope. Nope.

If you really think there's a basis for expunging this sort of information from articles, by all means cite it. But read carefully because I think you'll find the policies, just like my comments, do not say what you think they say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose:

A majority of your notable "reliable" reference sources, uses information that comes from a third party opinion survey magazine company, named Consumer Reports. All Wikipedia encyclopedic information and reference sources must be verified and most importantly reliable, which means "trustworthy." Not all information that is published in magazines and newspapers are accurate and reliable, even if this information is repeated in many different publication sources.

Below are some interesting published facts concerning Consumer Reports and it not be reliable or trustworthy in its annual car reliability report card ratings ...

"For many years, American auto industry advocates have accused Consumer’s Union and its Consumer Reports publication of being biased against domestic American brands. It’s been said that if the identical car were manufactured by Toyota and Chevrolet Chevrolet , CR would rate the Toyota above the Chevy simply based on nameplate. But Consumer Reports always claimed it was nothing but the soul of objectivity.

Now it turns out they were dissembling, if not outright lying, about their objectivity – and their standards. Consumer Reports has been recommending the Toyota brand without bothering to test it or even have any data about reliability to back up the recommendation.'"' (source: Top Speed magazine -10/17/2007)

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/how-does-consumer-reports-justify-rating-without-testing-ar45561.html

"Consumer Reports says it’s the reliability scores that are primarily keeping Chrysler from being competitive. But now the publication is acknowledging there are large swaths of missing reliability data for the automaker, according to Ward’s Automotive." (source: Cars.com 03/06/2011)

https://www.cars.com/articles/2011/03/consumer-reports-admits-reliability-data-was-scarce-for-chrysler/

Historianbuff (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• • That is a misleading accusation. If Consumer Reports were the only source, it might make sense to try to say this is nothing but CR's bias against Chrysler. But the text in question relies just as much on JD Power, and also mentions the American Customer Satisfaction Index. All three tell a consistent story. Consumer Reports is not an outlier. Are JD Power and ACSI also lying? That seems improbable. Adding to that, we can easily find historical records of Chrysler's struggles with quality and reliability problems, and a poor consumer image reaching back at least to the early 1960s: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.

    Consumer Reports has been challenged at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in the past and has easily won consensus that it meets our standards by a mile. You could try once again to change that at WP:RSN, but I'd not put money on it.

    You could certainly add nuance to the story of quality and reliability comparisons between the Detroit automakers over time, but in order to get to a fully contextualized, balanced, nuanced article, we have to let editors expand the article. Holding every edit to a standard of NPOV perfection is the end of growth of Wikipedia. Only BLPs approach such a high standard. For everything not a BLP (and corporations are not people), the broad consensus is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that means in order to move incrementally from a flawed article to a better article, the flawed article, or flawed content, must first exist. Stonewalling like this, because there are nits (and there are always nits) destroys the collaborative, incremental process that Wikipedia is built on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD, In a recent WP:ARE you have been arguing that you are editing in the best interest of WP and that your efforts are not disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert, Laser brain, and Dennis Brown have thus far given you the benefit of the doubt and not blocked your editing for 30 days. Less than a month ago you were strongly advised to back away from this topic and the Ford Pinto topic in an ANI [[9]]. The editors of the Pinto article even went as far as requesting a topic ban based on your edits[10] noting that you followed me to this topic as a form of harassment. Rather than taking the hint and assuming a lower profile and more cordial behavior you are returning to WP:TEND behaviors. This ARE hasn't gone the way you hoped so you started campaigning in the last few days and have attempted to extend it. The way I read it, your proposed text is dead in the water. Some aspect of the content should be considered but I would ask that you back away from the topic as others have suggested. Certainly you should not start a new edit war. Springee (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how your edit warring is any less disruptive than HughD's edit warring. Both of you should stop. I don't particularly care about HughD's past behavior, and this page is not the proper venue to talk about an editor's behavior. Take it to his talk page or a noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article, not editors.

I also disagree with the claim made by more than one participant that the proposed text has been rejected. There is a 5 to 4 deadlock, with no clear consensus. It has been neither rejected nor accepted. There is general agreement that discussion of Chrysler's past should be balanced, with context, comparison with others so Chrysler's sins are held in the same light as other automakers, and due credit is given for Chrysler's successes as well as errors or failures. I say WP:SOFIXIT: instead of bickering over what is wrong with this proposal, why not write something that most of us can agree on?

There's no further need to edit war over whether or not to extend this RfC. I've requested closure by a third party at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. WP:3RR has already been violated in spirit, and more reverts are likely to be interpreted as crossing the bright line. Please do not revert again, ATTN: @HughD: @Springee: @CZmarlin: @Arthur Rubin:. Let somebody else decide and then let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, a 5:4 deadlock means there is not consensus for inclusion. Certainly if we are going to conclude that exact text must be added to the article we better have a strong consensus. That doesn't mean we can't try to address issues and move forward but it does mean the proposal as stated (ie an exact paragraph) is rejected. Hugh previously was pushing for inclusion of both quality and recall material. The previous proposals were largely rejected due to WIEGHT issues associated with the recalls being pushed. Due not that Hugh was reported and warned for a 3RR violation associated with those changes. Regardless, this time he is only pushing for quality report material which I'm not opposed to including but I do oppose the way he wants to include it. I suspect many of the objectors feel the same way. I think the correct next step is close this discussion and then open a talk section regarding how and what to include. Springee (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not voting, reasons are more important than counts of positions, and neutrality with respect to reliable sources is in dispute. Additional, broadened community participation and a formal close by an uninvolved administrator are strongly indicated. Again. content summarizing coverage of recalls in noteworthy reliable sources is not proposed here; please help us all focus on the current proposal in this thread WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk)

Yes, consensus is not voting. But when you ask to include exact text, then we should have a very high bar for inclusion. People who say the material should be included in general (and I don't oppose general inclusion) don't necessarily support your exact statements. Based on the reading of the response, you are the only editor who supports including your exact quote. Springee (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support These are reliable and respectable sources which are due inclusion per NPOV. As for where, I suggest within the "product line" section. This is not to say the text is perfect and unalterable. There may be more positive views in reliable sources that editors may wish to add. There is simply no call for stonewalling this addition, though. Rhoark (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with all of what Rhoark said immediately above. I also disagree with the characterization of the text or sources proposed as "polemical" - that is simply not the case. Neutrality^talk 03:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment HughD's addition to his opening comment is an absurd misinterpretation of policy. Negative comments should be included, provided the sources are reliable for those comments, and it does not constitute undue weight. Both of these assertions are in question. (Furthermore, editing his comment makes some of the replies inappropriate, which is a clear violation of talk page guidelines, if not WP:NPA.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support with a minor change. Remove the "at least" from the first sentence, as this implies that they were criticized before the late 1990s and we have no sources stating that. Otherwise, this is reliably sourced and important for neutrality. ~ Rob^Talk 20:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not agree with the closer's reasoning, but I am not going to request reconsideration. It is a plausible, but I believe inaccurate, summary of the arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Where should quality survey type information go in the article

As I said above, I think a good argument can be made for including quality survey information in the Chrysler article. The above RfC is problematic because it asks editors to approve an exact text and doesn't state where it should be added. I'm starting this section to ask where we should add such material in the current article structure. I'm not proposing any text at the moment but I'm presuming that would also be discussed here. I would think the material should live under the "United States sales" subheading. I would leave Fiat brand information out of the discussion and only consider FCA's US brands. Material covering Fiat (and perhaps Ferrari) should be under [Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles]. Springee (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said any such thing. The RfC says nothing about "exact text". You made that up. The question was "Should the following content be added to the article?" If there is consensus to add the content, that in no way repeals the basic fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Consensus can change. Any content can and will be improved by subsequent edits. Why on Earth can't editors reach a consensus about adding some content without making any determination about where the content is going to go? As with the silly idea that all content must be perfectly neutral before it can be added to any article, this idea would paralyze collaborative editing. Of course a formal decision can be reached to support taking some action, while leaving the details of how or where undecided. There doesn't need to be a formal directive for how each and every thing must be done.

The only thing that is problematic is taking a simple question about adding some stuff on an article -- something people do thousands of times a day -- and over-dramatizing it into some sort of grave, irrevocable, world-altering decision. Possibly due to obsessive Wikihounding of the person who proposed the RfC? I'm not the first editor to suggest that a little personal distance would help the situation, and give a little needed perspective. I don't think I'll be the last. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, rather than messing around with the RfC, I've taken the BOLD step of adding quality information to the article. I'm certain it will not make everyone happy but it's a start. The length of the material being proposed above was UNDUE. We should be careful with regards to simply reporting the news sources that simply requote CR and JDP year after year as WP is WP:NOTNEWS. We also should be careful because there are sources that question the validity of CR and JDP's methods. That isn't to say that their impact on car buyers isn't real. However, what ever we want to include it really needs to be encyclopedic. Please note that for the article edit I used sources from the above RfC. Ultimately I think we should find some source that has complied or discusses long term trends in quality. Including, for example, a 2012 article that says CR put Chrysler products below average in 2012 is basically reporting news. Doing that 20 times is just repeating the news 20 times which doesn't address WP:NOTNEWS. We need to find a reliable source that describes the long term trend. Springee (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, once again, WP:NOTNEWS says no such thing. If you were to want to write a new article about each new CR or JDP headline, that would be proscribed by NOTNEWS. But what it says is, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information".

Getting back to the article's subject itself, and the public's low estimation of Chrysler's quality, we need to trace the history of Lee Iacocca introducing the industry's first 5 year/50,000 mile warranty as both a way to address the perceived low quality, and a top-down goad to force the company's divisions to improve quality or face expensive warranty repairs. Next Chrysler upped the ante to a 7 year warranty, again, because quality was a driving concern, sometimes real, sometimes only perceived. And then a lifetime warranty. It is a complicated story. Nitpicking about the imperfections of CR or JDP misses the forest for the trees, and is off topic. We have articles on Consumer Reports and JD Power for anyone who wishes to delve deeper into those questions. Your addition is a start but there is much more to be added. Some of it will not reflect well on Chrysler, but that is allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic. They are subject to the NOTNEWS clause. If we present 20 years of the material then we have flooded the article with "notnews". If we show the twenty years then say Chrysler has had poor CR results for 20 years that might be OR depending on how the conclusion is stated. Instead what we should do is find an article or several that talk about the long term quality trends. Even then we need to be careful about weight given the age of the company and scope of the article. I think we are at least on the same page that the RfC proposed text doesn't fly as is and we should be seeking more comprehensive sources for this topic. Springee (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I could cite hundreds of articles that use annual, monthly and even daily data. I could cite many guidelines that encourage adding these sorts of rankings, reports, and ratings, such as WP:PEACOCK. Many GAs and FAs have weather and climate data of this sort. Financial data is published in annual reports, which CZMarlin above said, "Financial data is critical to the firm, its investors, and all other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and the communities in which it has operations. The brief financial condition information allows readers to know how viable it is, how it balances profit with costs, as well as how it measures up to other companies." And so on.

Where, precisely, in WP:NOTNEWS does it say anything even remotely similar to your claim: "Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year. As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic."? Where does it say that?

Here, let's just quote the entire thing:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)

As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Exactly where in the above guideline to you see anything that bans mention of Consumer Reports, JD Power and other similar rankings and statistics? It does not say what you claim it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Springee: has again repeated the nonsense that WP:NOTNEWS is somehow relevant to his efforts to limit mention of quality surveys from CR or JD Power, and of recall information. Once again, above we can all read the complete text of WP:NOTNEWS. There isn't one word that in any way says you can't mention Consumer Reports rankings or surveys like JD Power. There isn't one word there saying the mainstream media can't be used to indicate due weight must be given to things widely reported in the MSM. So I repeat, Springee, please tell us exactly where in the policy it says anything that justifies your deletion of every single mention of recalls and every single mention of quality rankings. Where does it say that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Please assume good faith. 2. You already mentioned your objection below. No reason to bring it up here, several months later. Springee (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a need. You keep throwing around "NOTNEWS" like it bolsters your argument. I asked you how, I asked you where NOTNEWS says anything of the kind. No answer. Today you bandy NOTNEWS around again like a magic word that wins the day for you. So that makes it necessary to ask again, where does it say that? Which words in NOTNEWS support your deletions? Just answer the question. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)