Talk:Chrysler/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

On JD Power, Consumer Reports, etc

There are several arguments in the threads just above as to why we generally want to include quality ratings, survey data, and expert opinions about companies like Chrysler. This sort of thing is found in Featured Articles, and it's particularly relevant if we want to help explain why Chrysler has had such a troubled history.

With regard to criticisms of JD Power surveys, or Consumer Reports ratings, and such, it's important to defer to the fact that the New York Times, BBC, CNN, etc take these and similar publications seriously. Our sources tell us what is "encyclopedic". We don't get to just make up reasons we don't like things and call it "unencyclopedic".

You or I might not like it, but JD Power and others like it carry great weight, and even if they were totally wrong, they do impact public perception. Public perception impacts sales, which (perhaps) explains the company's bankruptcy, bailouts, takeovers, etc.

I happen to think The King's Speech didn't deserve Best Picture, and Oscar voting is a sham. My opinion doesn't justify deleting Oscar mentions from articles and calling it "unencyclopedic". If you can cite expert criticism of these sources, or experts who say that Chrysler's poor quality reputation is undeserved, please cite them. That would be a valuable addition. But please don't make up your own reasons for deleting facts and opinions you don't like. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt consumer guide, so those surveys not needed here -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You deleted content about past models. For the consumer guide objection to make any sense, it would at least have to be about current models. And even then, critical reception is found an every kind of current offering. Please respect consensus. Improvements, balance and expansion are welcome. Those saying you can't cite JD Power and CR lost. See perhaps WP: IDHT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I deleted because for every make or model can be found very easily good and bad "surveys" and also the source has sometimes biaslike german surveys they tends to support own car manufacturing business there is really no point to add those unreliable surveys to some makes or models and there is rule that wikipedia isnt any consumer guide. There is always good and bad surveys you cant just add some to blame some manufacturers or praise some. This thing has been discussed million times in automobiles group. This is almost same as adding various magazine/internet 0-100 km/h times, we can find almost those times we want, so best ptactise is add manufacturer times and avoid bashing some models/marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typ932 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 July 2016‎

Consensus has rejected this idea that articles on car company may not have any negative information or criticism whatsoever. You are welcome to add balancing information to add nuance, and contrary points of view. There are certainly two sides to anything. But can you delete every section that contains customer satisfaction information, recall information, criticism of Chrysler's quality? No, you don't get to just erase everything that doesn't put the article subject in a good light.

The most constructive thing for you to do would be to add alternate explanations for Chrysler bailouts, bankruptcies and sales to Daimler and Fiat for ever smaller amounts of money. Some say that it wasn't really quality, but rather that economies of scale prevented them from competing against Ford and GM, and EPA regulations made that even worse. You could do that work. But a giant eraser to hide any warts? No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Note WP:NPOV has not been changed. The RfC above was for a short section at most. Note also that, alas, one proponent of a long section is not currently here. Collect (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, you guys simply nuke entire sections instead of building the encyclopedia. How is anything supposed to get written this way? Wikipedia would have zero articles if someone deleted everything that wasn't perfectly neutral on the first try. And how come you only stonewall on the parts you want to suppress? I don't see you ripping out other sections because they aren't perfectly neutral. Why does criticism have to meet a higher standard of neutrality than the rest of the article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Chrysler's well-publicized quality problems should certainly be included, instead of simply not answering how the company lurches from disaster to disaster. Clearly, quality isn't the only problem, but needs to be mentioned.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've rolled back the recent large addition to the article in agreement with Collect. I believe consensus was already against the inclusion on most recalls. I think we can discuss how much should be included in terms of quality but the previous RFC did not support the recent, extensive additions. Springee (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you should go back and read the Automobile Wikiproject's discussion on that again. We usually don't mention recalls that were only reported in specialist or enthusiast media. But when they attract notice in non-automotive media, then we do include them. When on top of that you have large fines, that's even less routine. You should be putting together research on how all this collectively explains Chrysler's troubles. Your stonewalling isn't working.

Why do you only delete sections are that make Chrysler look bad? Other sections are not perfectly neutral. Shouldn't every paragraph be removed? Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I think you should revisit the discussion. There was agreement that only the most significant recalls should be mentioned (and this follows what we see in other auto articles). Why would we restore a brake booster recall? We do agree that quality information can be included but appropriate weight was not agreed upon. Collect disagrees with your restoration of material added by an editor who was engaged in an edit war. I agree with Collect in this place and absolutely do not support the particular recalls that were restored. I think at this point we should be discussing proposals here rather than restoring material that was originally added by a third editor in bad faith. Springee (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is right here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Recalls-notability. I know you know that because right here is where you asked about it, and were directed to that very proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 42#Handling of recalls and controversies on manufacture's pages.

Why did you nuke everything if your objection is only a subset of the recalls? Why didn't you simply delete the recalls you think don't pass the convention? And how come you deleted a whole other section that isn't about recalls? And, again, how come you're not deleting any other sections of this article? You've set an arbitrary standard for sections that criticize Chrysler, but you don't think the neutrality of any other section is very important. It suggests a strong editorial bias on your part, rather than any attempt to comply with the NPOV policy.

The pattern of stonewalling suggests you're not here to build an encyclopedia. You simply delete wholesale any section of an article that you think makes Chrysler look bad. Evidence that you're here to improve the article would be some minimal effort to address the problems you claim to care about, rather than these mass reverts and stonewalling. In the spirit of collaborative editing, I've restored the massive collateral damage from your deletions, and only removed the section that you feel fails the standard proposed by the Automobiles project, for recalls reported in the mainstream media only as they are announced. Of course, this brake booster story is not just a single event: there were the Jeeps and Durangos in 2014, and then it grew to cover Darts in 2015. And other SUVs, also in 2015. Seems like a bigger issue than one isolated recall, but I'm willing to work with you to build an article. Let's work together to write something, rather than this endless edit warring.

I hope you will work to build this article. It seems your entire effort seems built around a strategy to push the limit the 3RR to your advantage. As long as you only do 3 reverts and not a 4th, you win. Is that the plan? Because you should read WP:3RR: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

How about instead of reverting, you find sources, write some content, and write something? You're violating the WP:NPOV policy by ignoring the section Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Common_objections_and_clarifications, which is explained further in neutrality as an excuse to delete: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased." I don't expect you to leave the text exactly as it is. Please make some contributions. Reword, adjust. But using the 3RR rule this way, to simply stonewall, is disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit was lost and now I'm out of time. I hope to add a proper reply later today but I will be traveling. I object to all of the included recall information and much of HughD's OVERCITED CR material. Please propose/discuss edits here before restoring the content. Several editors, not just myself have objected. Springee (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the essay wp:Citation overkill? It doesn't say one word about deleting any content. It says if there are too many footnotes, you remove the excess footnotes. Not the content. You keep pasting in these all caps shortcuts that say to not do what you keep doing. Have you read the bit about "neutrality is not an excuse to delete"? The policy directly addresses your behavior and it says to not do it.

Are there any conditions under which you would tolerate any negative information about Chrysler all? Your rationales keep changing. The only common theme is that you delete entire sections that say anything negative about Chrysler. Is that so? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, sorry for the delayed reply. First, please note that I have already said I'm not against adding the material in principle but I am against how it was added. We can start with the discussion of the recalls. I think we would agree that we should use common sense and only include the most significant recalls (I believe you said as much). The discussion you linked to mentioned "made it to mainstream news" but also said use your head. I tried to further that discussion a few months later. Many, many recalls are mentioned by main stream news sources, particurally as part of stories that repeat news wire articles. But remember that we should use our heads. I think we can use our heads to see that something like the Pinto recall, the GM ignition switch or the Toyota unintended acceleration recall is really big. Those recalls are associated with problems that resulted in congressional hearings. That's big. However, many other recalls exist and sometimes these become stories of the time. Here are two MSN articles talking about Honda CR-V fires related to oil filters ([1], [2]). I don't believe the Honda fires are part of the Honda article but clearly this is something that made it to main stream news. There are so many such examples that I thought we should hold these articles to a higher standard. It would be like adding every lawsuit against a big city to the article if we could find mention of the lawsuit in the local press. I'm not sure how you define a line that says how much main stream coverage a recall must have but I think we can agree that just a few mentions around the time of the recall is probably not significant enough to include in an article that is meant to cover a major company that is nearly 100 years old. None of these recalls meet that sort of bar and the RfC above didn't discuss the recalls (HughD at least realized that wasn't going to fly and dropped that from his RfC).

OK, the other part are the quality related articles. I do think the quality related material is significant and said as much. I also added material to the article to that end. The material you reverted suffered from several issues. First, several editors objected to the content and how it was added (see the talk page history). The citation dump was clearly not OK and simply restoring it without discussion was not the correct way to fix the problem. In addition to the overcite problem, the other issue with the addition was that it was basically a dump of articles. There was no narrative and many of the articles said basically the same thing. It would be better to try to organize a few, good articles and summarize them rather than say "CR said bad things about the cars in the following years". Ideally would be a book or more holistic article that talked about Chrysler's quality issues and how they impacted sales or something over a period of time. That would be more encyclopedic. I put a bit of effort into that sort of thing but didn't find a few great articles to use to cover such a section and I admit that what I have could be better. Note that as much as possible a historical, retrospective article would be better vs a current event type article.

Finally, please don't accuse others of attempting to white wash etc. Several editors objected to your changes. At that point the best thing to do is come here and propose changes and ask for help to address the objections. Springee (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing content not because of the content itself, but because of "how it was added"? I don't know what to make of that. It sounds like WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking, by someone WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I hope that's not what you mean. However the content got here, once the save button is clicked, it belongs to Wikipedia. Whatever history or baggage you're carrying around, please don't expect the rest of us to defer to your hangups.

"Use your head"? First you say you want to follow the standard agreed to by WikiProject Automobiles, but then you say, no, actually, now there's this brand new standard, just made up by me out of thin air: no wire service reports, and must result in Congressional hearings. I tried to meet you halfway, and so I removed the recalls that were only covered around the time of the recall, and kept the ones that were covered by MSM over a longer span. Were you satisfied? Nope, you came back and removed ALL of those, apparently because they don't meet your new criteria you just made up. You removed mention of Chrysler paying the record largest fine to date, surpassed only by the Takata airbag fines. The NHTSA held public hearings, what the NYT called "a rare, sweeping move against an automaker". We have a mainstream sources telling us, right in the first sentence "THIS IS BIG AND HERE'S WHY". The WSJ tells us why this is a big deal for Chrysler's future, contradicting the absurd idea that this is routine or trivial. You can't just make up your own arbitrary standards for what you think is "really big". I've never once heard any other editor say that the whims of the United States Congress, of all things, dictate what we include.

Your premise itself is false: this article is not sandbagged with longs lists of trivial recalls. If we had that problem, then it might be pertinent for us to work on a standard to "draw the line" as you say, to clean it up. Currently the article mentions no recalls whatsoever. If you're not whitewashing, then stop acting like there has never been a Chrysler recall worthy of mention.

Note that in addition to coverage of the recalls related to Chrysler's record-setting fine, I'm also going to add material about Fiat-Chrysler's recall of 5.22 million vehicles with Takata airbags, part of the largest recall in history, and the subject of Congressional hearings. Your made-up criterion is nonsense, but at least now I know there's one recall you can't expunge. Also, going to add coverage of the Jeep shifter problem tied to the death of Anton Yelchin. I suspect you won't like it, but I think you need to learn to base due weight on what the sources tell us, not what you like or don't like. The sources say it's significant.

WP:OVERCITE is not a "problem" in any sense except when polishing an article, perhaps as a GA or FA candidate. Excess footnotes is NOT a reason for mass deletion of anything. Citation overkill is just an essay, not a guideline or policy, and even if we take this essay as Gospel, it doesn't tell you to trash whole paragraphs. Not even one sentence. It tells you to fix the excess footnotes, not delete the content. The MOS essay Writing better articles has your number: "Be careful about deleting material that may be factual. If you are inclined to delete something from an entry, first consider checking whether it is true. If material is apparently factual, in other words substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. If another editor provided a fact, there was probably a reason for it that should not be overlooked. Therefore, consider each fact provided as potentially precious. Is the context or overall presentation the issue? If the fact does not belong in one particular article, maybe it belongs in another."

And you now introduce a whole new issue you've never brought up before: organization. Narrative. You want the article to flow better. That's nice, but polishing is not a justification for mass deletion. If you think a paragraph should be moved, move it, don't delete it.

Your complaints about Consumer Reports, again, have no basis. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources gives us no reason to delete content merely because it is from a magazine. If this were about resolving a conflict between "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks" that say one thing, and CR, which says something else, you might have an argument saying a quality book is more reliable. But you're saying we can't make any mention whatsoever of magazine rankings or consumer surveys like JD Power. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch says exactly the opposite: magazine rankings are valuable sources to us.

I ask you, again, to stop mass deletion of well-cited material. Your habit of wholesale deletion, rather than fixing the supposed problem, is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You are deleting viewpoints that have been given significant coverage, such as JD Power rankings. You might not like it, but the value of these rankings, and CR's rankings, are widely accepted. Your peeves about them are a FRINGE view.

Do not use "lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete". If you think something is out of balance, fix it, don't trash it all. "There is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time."

A handful of editors have collaborated with you in deleting all criticism of Chrysler. But many editors have told you to stop. Many editors want to see this content included. @Mr.choppers:, most recently, just chimed in to remind you that, yes quality problems need to be here because they are well-publicized and we should tell the reader "how the company lurches from disaster to disaster."

If you don't like being accused of whitewashing, then stop this. Fix what's broken, without any more mass deletion. Show me that you care about anything except expunging all negative press about Chrysler. There are a huge number of serious factual errors in this article, and lots of peacockery, weasel words, and undue weight. You've spent ages edit warring to expunge criticism without taking any notice of any of these other problems. That is evidence that you are here to whitewash the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, rather than a series of bad faith accusations please make your case for what material should be included and how. My objective isn't to whitewash and the accusation is one of bad faith. Let's please drop such comments. I think you have made a reasonable case for ONE of the recalls (it would be best if you showed that it had some sort of longer term impact on the company or industry etc). My "new" standard isn't anything more than what you argued last year. This is an industry with many fines (and the fines go up with inflation). But remember, we need to judge this with historical perspective. Is the news today going to be of sufficient weight in the future. I removed content that was poorly edited and was questioned by a number of other editors ( @CZmarlin:, @Damotclese:, @Markbassett:, @Historianbuff:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Collect: ). It is certainly my editorial opinion that we don't have a Chrysler recall that rises to the level of the ones I mentioned above. Please propose changes here so we can all weigh in on them without back and forth article edits. Springee (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad faith is when you pretend your new Congressional hearing standard "isn't anything more than what you argued last year". ?!? What I said was, (and the link is right up there for anyone to read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Recalls-notability!!! ) "only recalls that received significant attention, particularly in mainstream media, should be mentioned" and "specialist publications like Motorcycle Consumer News have a regular column where they list every motorcycle recall, large and small. That's routine coverage and isn't a reason to add it to an article. But non-specialist publications that write up a recall are a different story. Even non-critical recalls that for whatever reason attract attention in the NYT or CNN or whatever should probably merit attention, especially if the source tells us a meaningful or interesting reason why the particular recall is worthy of note."

Did you note that last bit? For. Whatever. Reason. I said. I specifically asserted that we should bow to the wisdom of the MSM, and if they publish a series of stories about a recall of 10 cars for paint specks, well, so be it. The philosophy behind that is that Wikipedia content is ultimately determined by sources, not editors.

Twisting people's words creates unnecessary hard feelings, you know that?

There's nothing wrong with the current Automobile Project consensus on recalls. If you want to change it, go propose a new standard and see. Until then, don't unilaterally impose your own arbitrary rules.

Another kind of bad faith? Flat out making stuff up. Many sources wrote deep analysis of the record Chrysler fines. Not one of them blamed inflation, of all things, for the size of the fine. How could anyone collaborate writing articles when you have to accommodate an editor who fabricates novel theories to explain away whatever he doesn't like? Look at the sources. The size of the fine was a response to Congressional outrage over previous lax enforcement by the NHSTA, leading to problems getting far out of hand like the GM ignition fires. Chrysler had pushed back against the NHSTA when they should have played nice. In addition, Chrysler flat out failed to do its job. It "forgot" to take care of business, missing deadlines, ignoring notices. It walked right into that one. It was not inflation.

If you have a source that wants to argue an alternate theory of something, fine, cite it. But totally making things up pulled out of nowhere? Making other editors disprove your baseless ideas as a condition to build Wikipedia? "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". This applies to pretty much every rationalization you offer. If you don't have any facts, you have to get out of the way and let us write.

Are you aware that the NHSTA didn't exist until 1966? There were no recalls during the first 41 years of Chrysler's 90 year history.

Limiting content based on speculation about what people in the future think? Where did you get that one? Am I supposed to refute that too? How about, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? Future Wikipedians can float down off their hoverboards and edit the article to their heart's content, assuming Future Man even has need of a quaint "heart" organ. How the hell should I know what the future wants? You don't either.

Chrysler's historians have said again and again that much of their difficulty since WWII is based on one thing: size. The company, again and again, found itself just too small to match Ford, and especially, GM, when it came to all kinds of challenges, like the business cycle, regulation, new markets, etc. The narrative-- and now you are claiming narrative matters to you -- must take into account that a recall of a million cars hits Chrysler much harder than GM. What might be routine in a universal sense is a big deal to a small automaker. But I've already cited sources that tell us these things and more, and I don't think you care.

Propose changes to you for approval before I edit? Why? You want to stage an RFC to win approval for every single change going forward? No, absolutely not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:CONSENSUS, an official policy, before "diatribing" others.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

At this point, I fear you have decided a "consensus by you alone" is sufficient. It is not sufficient. Collect (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Make a string of wild, unsupported assertions, expect an answer back. The consensus I wish to follow is right here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Recalls-notability. Why would you describe that as me "alone"? I want to follow the old, accepted standard and instead I'm having all kinds of new arbitrary standards thrown at me nobody has ever heard of. Congressional hearings? What? "Sufficient weight in the future"? Really? Have you ever heard of "sufficient weight in the future"?

But Wikipedia:Consensus is policy. Do you take policy seriously? You're insisting we must adhere to that? Scroll up to the RfC right here on this talk page. A consensus decision was reached to add content to the article. Springee lost. Yet here we are, right back where we started. You just deny the result of the RfC as if it never happened.

So now? You want me to come here, propose something else, and again if you and Springee don't get your way, you guys will just ignore it, again, and delete it all anyway. See, if you don't respect past consensus here on this talk page, and you don't respect the consensus of the Automobiles WikiProject, then I'm disinclined to come back and try to kick that same football again. You two pulled it away before, so won't you again? I know the Consensus policy says "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." Which translates to: made up claims that the $105 million fine is unimportant because of inflation are going down in flames. Run that one by enough editors and they will tell you, "No, abide by the sources. Not some unsourced inflation theory". But what's the use if you're going to keep hitting the revert button regardless of consensus? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, please assume good faith. Simply restoring material that had previously been objected to and removed by several editors isn't fixing the issues. If you look several weeks (months?) back I suggested that I was more than OK with including the information but not as it was written. I have also suggested that you propose your changes here (ie use the talk page for it's intended purpose). I think you will find I'm quite reasonable about this and my intent is to build a better article. Springee (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: The "consensus" invoked from the Wikiproject does not aver that the extremely broad definition of "notability" being claimed here is correct. Especially when one proponent there of this sort of policy has been found to be a sock master, and been blocked. "Don't ban mention of recalls, but only mention the ones that are critical" Charles01 " Is there really any point in listing recalls that are not notable? " Greglocock. "we need to focus only on what get significant coverage from at least a few MSM outlets, else we drown in trivia" Dennis Brown The "consensus" claimed for that Wikiproject does not make the misuse of that consensus here proper in the first place. What we would need here is a consensus to include trivial recalls not attracting major media notice - and that position appears to fail rapidly. Collect (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability? No definition, broad or otherwise, of notability is being claimed here. That would be silly, since we all know that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Within an article, content is "governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

The convention supported by the Automobiles Project is: "recalls are mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced."

I guess you want Dennis Brown and CtrlXCtrlV and Gredlocock and Trekphiler and the whole gang to come back here and repeat for you their support for that exact definition? Sure, that would be great. If that would put this to rest, let's count all votes again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You made an assertion which was inapt about the "consensus" at the WikiProject level. I pointed out that your misrepresentations did not impress me, and also noted a sock master was among those who strongly supported your position. Frankly, I would be glad if you started an RfC on the particular material you seek to add, and also that you should explain why you reverted material inserted by a third party in this knee-jerk manner. Will you kindly phrase the RfC as you wish? Collect (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think an RfC is needed. I've been reading some of Dennis's Chrysler related edits and I think he is doing a generally good job. I haven't had a chance to read the 1979 bailout information. Certainly that period was significant in the history of Chrysler (and the government's actions towards struggling automakers). Sadly I haven't had much time recently to really read all of what Dennis has been doing but I suspect material he has added to other articles would be well suited here. My biggest issue with the material he was restoring is not that the general content (reliable articles about quality and recalls) shouldn't be in the article but that what he was restoring was of low quality and should have been redone from scratch with the below in mind.
• I think we need to really be careful about weight when adding recall information to manufacture vs model pages. Remember that there are literally thousands of articles about these companies in the mainstream press so even something that gets a decent amount of coverage in MSN sources may not have sufficient weight given the very large scope of the articles. The 2015 discussion Dennis listed was, based on the example used, discussing the inclusion of recalls in model specific articles, not brand or manufacture articles. I think we would all agree that the bar for including a recall in a model article is lower than in a manufacture's article. For example, it is notable to mention that the first year Ford Focus was subject to many, many recalls. I believe the number of recalls was covered by the MSN. However, would we argue the same information should be added to the Ford Motor Company page. Because the scope of the 2015 discussion wasn't clear I raised a similar question in 2016 focused only on manufacture pages. The consensus of two was that brand/manufacture pages demand a higher level of scrutiny.[3]. I'm open to revisiting that discussion.
• As for the quality/reliability data, again, weight and notnews come into play. I think the long term quality issues have impacted Chrysler's sales and the health of the company so inclusion is warranted in my view. However, with that in mind I think holistic coverage vs the material in dispute is the correct way to cover it. The previous text was more of a dumping ground vs coherent narrative. Springee (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Go back to WikiProject Automobiles and propose a revised standard, and see if they accept it. Until then, the consensus stands. Or if you want to completely overrule the Automobiles Wikiproject, go to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and see if you can get some new standard written is an actual guideline or policy.

  Don't expect me to bow down to the whims of one editor. I'm following established consensus. You're free to propose a stricter standard to the broader community, but you can't sit here and act like you own Chrysler and can dictate special rules that deviate from the rest of the Automobiles Project articles.

  Who knows? Maybe you'll win. Best of luck to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, the 2015 conversation, based on context, applied to model pages. Note the example given was a specific model, not the manufacture page. The consensus doesn't stand because the consensus didn't consider the question. Again, please assume good faith and please drop the combative tone. My objective is not to argue with you, it's the same as yours, to produce a better article. Springee (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't say only model pages. It says articles. If you want to change it so that standard only applies to model pages and some other standard applies elsewhere, then go propose that. Don't expect others to follow your made up rules. I'm following what the convention actually says, not what you wish it said. Go make your proposal and stop asking me to agree to all these made up rules. Even if today I agreed to each of the interpretations that you create by reading between the lines and "using your head", how would I ever guess what you'll think of tomorrow? Every day it's some new thing that isn't written down in any rule. Congressional hearings! Sufficient weight in the future! Only model pages! Boy, you really keep us on guessing, on the edge of our seats.

You're very creative, with a vivid imagination. You see things nobody else can see. But it prevents you from collaborating with others because we have no way of guessing what we'll think of next. I know it's boring, but conventions rules and guidelines only go as far as what they actually say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Your tone and accusations are not helping this discussion. Springee (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not say, "Nobody is ever allowed to criticize Springee". Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF was written just for you, I think. Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith breaks this down very clearly: I have never accused you of trying to "deliberately to disrupt the project". That would be bad faith. I have said that you have made errors, have shown poor judgement and lapses in judgement, and have misunderstood Wikipedia policy. Theses criticisms, as the essay says in all caps, are NOT accusations of bad faith.

You have made the choice to stonewall, reverting entire edits that contain parts that don't meet your arbitrary and capricious criteria. Instead fixing the problem, selectively removing what isn't helpful, adding inline tags or section tags where you see a problem, or simply discussing without reverting, you hit the revert button and trash all of it. I'll grant you that you do at least seem to read before you revert, so kudos for that. But you insist on violating the editing policy, WP:PERFECTION, removing content for undue weight, even though that very policy says neutrality is not an excuse to delete. This article is not a BLP, and nothing you have deleted is so bad as to fall under WP:CANTFIX.

If you would like a more collegial discussion, stop violating these policies. I have removed content you said wasn't within the conventions, and I'm still willing to meet you halfway. But keep stonewalling, keep misreading the rules, and you will keep hearing these same criticisms. Criticism of your judgement or understanding of policy is not a failure to AGF. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me of stonewalling is not AGF. "the key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive."[[4]]. Is not "stonewalling" a deliberate attempt to be unconstructive? I would ask that you drop the accusations and propose something rather than get mad. I don't think our views are as far apart as all this. Please, let's stop the bickering and discuss changes civilly. As for my specific recall related concerns, I will ask you a simple question that illustrates the issue I am raising. The number of recalls associated with the Ford Focus was noted by a number of MSN outlets. Does that mean the material's weight is sufficient for inclusion in the Ford Motor Company article? Springee (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Stonewalling ≠ WP:STONEWALL. WTF ≠ WP:WTF. Fap ≠ WP:FAP.

Ford Motor Company is about Ford Motor Company, and Ford Focus is about the Ford Focus. The same subject may be included in both pages, but the Focus recalls on Ford Motor Company will be about how they affected the Ford Motor Company, while on Ford Focus the same topic would be about how they affected the car. WP:Summary style has lots of guidance on how to handle this sort of thing. Here is one example of a MSM story that discusses how the recalls impacted Ford as a whole. If I were writing about this on the Ford article, I'd also use things like McClenahen, John S. "Ford's formidable challenge." Industry Week Feb. 2003: 31+ that says that while the US Focus cars were having serious quality problems, those made in Europe were winning quality awards, leading to Bill Ford to say, "What Ford of Europe has done has served as a blueprint for the revitalization plan we launched in North America in January of 2002." There's all sorts of insights to be found along those lines of inquiry. We're writing articles not just lists of stuff.

If I found someone had added excessive detail about the car on the company's page, I would try to follow the advice in the first sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality and move it to the car model article, and then replace it with information about the Focus recalls that is actually about the company, as in the two examples I gave above. Rather than just nuking it and calling it a day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of 1979 bailout

Collect, you are blindly reverting without reading. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to assert that every edit you make is exempt from WP:CONSENSUS and then you edit war to enforce your "consensus of one." I fear that your position here is becoming untenable. Collect (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I see. So you didn't read a word, did you? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad delete. Collect, why would you delete this:

Chrysler struggled to adapt to the changing environment of the 1970s. When consumer tastes shifted to smaller cars in the early 1970s, particularly after the 1973 oil crisis, Chrysler could not meet the demand. Additional burdens came from increased US import competition, and tougher government regulation of car safety, fuel economy, and emissions. As the smallest of the Big 3 US automakers, Chrysler lacked the financial resources to meet all of these challenges. In 1978, Lee Iacocca was brought in to turn the company around, and in 1979 Iacocca sought US government help, eventually convincing Congress to provide $1.5 billion in loan gurantees, on the condition that Chrysler find a combined $2 billion in additional financing or cost cutting.

After a period of plant closures and salary cuts agreed to by both management and the auto unions, the loans were repaid with interest in 1983. In November 1983 the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager was introduced, leading the establishment of the minivan as a major category, and initiating Chrysler's return to stability.

In 1985, Diamond-Star Motors was created, further expanding the Chrysler-Mitsubishi relationship. In 1987, Chrysler acquired American Motors Corporation (AMC), which brought the profitable Jeep brand under the Chrysler umbrella.

These are hardly embattled opinions. You even deleted completely innocuous mentions of Simca, Rootes, and Barreiros. Seriously.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The EB is intrinsically a tertiary source - Wikipedia is founded on reliable secondary sources. And the source does not even back such claims as "When consumer tastes shifted to smaller cars in the early 1970s, particularly after the 1973 oil crisis, Chrysler could not meet the demand" nor "Additional burdens came from increased US import competition, and tougher government regulation of car safety, fuel economy, and emissions. As the smallest of the Big 3 US automakers, Chrysler lacked the financial resources to meet all of these challenges." nor " In 1978, Lee Iacocca was brought in to turn the company around, and in 1979 Iacocca sought US government help, eventually convincing Congress to provide $1.5 billion in loan gurantees [sic], on the condition that Chrysler find a combined $2 billion in additional financing or cost cutting" - in fact the EB article does not back any of the claims ascribed to it.

In 1985, Diamond-Star Motors was created, further expanding the Chrysler-Mitsubishi relationship. In 1987, Chrysler acquired American Motors Corporation (AMC), which brought the profitable Jeep brand under the Chrysler umbrella. is totally unsourced.

The NPR "timeline" backs absolutely zero in this section.

Misuse of sources is wrong. Presenting claims of fact which are not backed by the sources presented is worse.

Removal of unsourced or wrongly sourced claims of fact is what Wikipedia requires. Collect (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well why didn't you say so? Your edit summary implied that somehow there had been previous objection to these additions. I've now added more citations to cover all of the details included in the current text. It's going to take a lot more expansion to explain the large set of issues behind the phrase "lacked the financial resources".

Britannica is a tertiary source, but so what? WP:PSTS actually says it's the kind of source we'd want to use for a broad summary like this, particularly where WP:UNDUE has become such as hot issue. You definetly shouldn't nuke whole sections just because they contained a tertiary source, and if that's the reason, you should say so in the edit summary.

It is incorrect to say "Removal of unsourced or wrongly sourced claims of fact is what Wikipedia requires." The editing policy says WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, except in a few cases defined in WP:CANTFIX, which don't apply here. The verifiability policy says at WP:CHALLENGE that you may remove material lacking sources, but you had an "obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion." You didn't do that, and you reverted the entire edit, not just the parts that weren't supported by the citations I'd given up to that point. The same policy says "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article." That's a far cry from your claim that Wikipedia "requires" you to trash the whole thing.

Let's stop and consider your level of perfectionism here. "Misuse of sources is wrong". Really? Presenting claims of fact not in the source is worse! Terrible! But do you think you can get away with such intolerance of mistakes when you yourself restored the sentences about Diamond-Star being formed in 1985, and the Jeep acquisition in 1987. Your revert put those exact sentences right back where they were, because they'd been there all along, since about 2013. WP:CHALLENGE and WP:PERFECTION say that you ought to be taking this into account. If this were a FA, it might make sense, but not an article that is not even C class to begin with.

You have no business attacking anyone for "misuse of sources" when you very clearly did not read what you reverted. You weren't objecting to the Diamond-Star or Jeep lines, because if you were you wouldn't have put them back in the article, along with several other unsourced sentences you also didn't read. So cut me some slack, OK?

I welcome your collaboration. Thank you for pointing out that additional citations were needed for some of the content I added. That was helpful, and now I've corrected it. Please refrain from excessive deletion and mass reverts. You can use the talk page or maintenance tags to point out places where citations are needed, or you can judiciously remove material that is a serious, unfixable problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

When the sources given do not remotely make the claims asserted, the edit can not be "fixed" In the case at hand, the sources were absolutely and blatantly abused. And I find your tone here to be non-collegial at best. Collect (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Britannica and NPR sources remain worthless, the history.com source does not give the $2 billion figure, and Hyde does break down what that figure represents. Note that the $1.5 billion was a "loan guarantee" and not a grant to Chrysler. Collect (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cannot be fixed? You just fixed it. Fixed it kicking and screaming, and with maximum drama, but fix it you did. Just like Wikipedia is supposed to work. Good job. You should be happy.

Instead, you're making more personal attacks and accusing me of bad faith. User:Springee thanked me for my edit, and User:Mr.choppers told you my addition was "hardly embattled opinions." Obviously you see a huge difference between your version and my version, but nobody else does, so please drop it. I like your version just fine. Saying sources were "blatantly abused" is the kind of nonsense that got us into this endless debate. Please, no more of that. Just tag the problem, or post a short note on the talk page pointing out specifically what's wrong, or just fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The fix was to remove the improperly used and misused sources and to word the claims so that the remaining new sources were not misused and abused. In short, I had to remove the engine from the edit, and add all new parts. Collect (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Requested move 30 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Calidum ¤ 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Calidum ¤ 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Chrysler → FCA US LLC
• Chrysler (brand) → Chrysler

– Chrysler Group is now known as FCA US LLC. 198.52.13.15 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose — FCA US violates WP:COMMONNAME and LLC violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). We could have made a practice of moving articles around every time a company's legal name changes and that would have worked fine. But instead we decided to go the other way and stick with simple article titles that readers easily recognize. We don't use General Motors Company LLC or Volkswagen AG for the same reasons. Neither method is 'wrong' or 'better', it's just that we needed to pick one convention or the other and stick with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, although FCA US would be better as Fiat Chrysler or Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This article seems to talk about the history of the Chrysler corporation and the history of the Chrysler organization during it's time as part of DCX, Cerberus, and now Fiat-Chrysler. I would reserve FCA for the history of the joint company going forward. I also agree that FCA would violate common name. This is a case where I suggest we stick with the common name of the organization that is Chrysler even though it's legal status and name have changed a few times since the late 90s. Springee (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Chrysler is a subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. like FCA Italy. Look at Fiat S.p.A., it is history to keep, not to rename. --Robertiki (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name and per Robertiki. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per most or all of the above. This article's scope is not limited to the present FCA US. If necessary a separate article can be written about that merged entity, though I think a section at this one is better.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving this article as well as Chrysler (brand)

I propose we move this to FCA LLC. and move Chrysler (brand) to Chrysler. People could probably figure it out. TheUSConservative (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

See section just above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Implementation of RfC from earlier this year.

Earlier this year we had a RfC that covered material about Chrysler's reliability etc. A link to the RfC is here [[5]]. The RfC closed stating that the material in general should be added but how and were was still open for discussion (note that Arthur Rubin disagreed with the closing conclusion). A further talk page discussion (same archive) tried to resolve what and where the material should go. A short version of the material was already added in April and stood for a number of months.[[6]] In October an exact copy of the material from the RfC was added [[7]] without integration into the article and in addition to the material added in April thus we now have redundant coverage. I've reverted the add and opened this discussion in hopes that we can reach an agreement as to what the text will say and where it should be in the article. I would ask that we get input from at least a few of the editors involved with the original discussion. Springee (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You're making no attempt to improve the wording or relocate the content, or offering improved sources, or citing alternative authorities. You're simply nuking it all. That would be done if the RfC had been closed as 'remove'. You lost, yet here you are pretending you get your way regardless. This is another example of your bad faith. "Heads I win, tails you lose." Not acceptable. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dennis, I will ask you once to drop the stick thank you. As for the material in question, first, I already did put forth an edit in response to the consensus view. That was done in April and the material is still in the article. The RfC did not say the exact text should be added, in fact it said the text was still up for debate and that we a editors should come up with consensus text. My April edit was a first go at that consensus text. The October edit contains repeat material. Perhaps you can try contributing and suggest ways to better integrate the text. I'm happy to give it a second try but it would be helpful if you offered constructive criticism. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop objecting your bad faith until you cease bad faith editing.

The RfC result says that either the text stays at it is, or we keep something similar, with the same general sense. The one thing that will not happen is wholesale deletion. That's what you asked to do in the RfC, and that was rejected. So don't keep repeating that action. If you wish do make nuanced changes, by supplying better sources, moving the material to a better location, or wording changes that improve it, go ahead. Every option is open to you, except for deleting all of it. You asked for that in the RfC, and the answer you got was no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The RfC says, " Its current form, however, may not be satisfactory, and editors should feel free to implement changes in the normal way, subject to further consensus if disagreement occurs". I'm not the only editor who objected to how the text was presented. I'm trying to work to address that problem. Your claim that I asked for whole sale deletion is a half truth. I initially did but to be honest at first I had assumed, given the large number of edits HughD was making at the time, that he was again trying to add several recalls along with this material. I did object to that material wholesale. If you read, and I will quote for you, "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." (April 25th). I'm not sure how that can be taken to mean I unconditionally object. Again, remember that my April edit, one you supported, [[8]] does cover much of that content.

Can we start with a small step, are you OK with integrating the material into the Sales and Marketing section or do you want a stand alone section?

Pinging other editors who were involved at the time @CZmarlin:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Damotclese:, @EllenCT:, @Markbassett:, @Granger:, @Historianbuff:, @Rhoark:, @Neutrality:, @Rob: Springee (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to take a crack and the content here and try to explain what I see is wrong with the information as added. Here is what I added in April based on the results of the RfC at the time (no one was commenting but the RfC wasn't officially closed)

Chrysler's quality and customer satisfaction ratings have been below average according to Consumer Reports and JD Powers since the late 1990s.

Now here is the disputed text:

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.

My April text gets to the point, since the 1990s Chrysler has had quality issues according to JDP and CR. What do we get out of the 8 sentences vs the one? We have one article (Stewart, NYTs) that suggests that part of the reason why Chrysler went to Fiat was due to quality issues. OK, should that be in the quality section or in the Chrysler+Fiat section? Consider that we have individual sentences all saying about the same thing but for different surveys/years each time. The following CR surveys years are mentioned: 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, 2015 (again), 2016. The following JDP yearly surveys are mentioned: 2009, 2015. Why have 8 nearly identical sounding sentences, one right after the other that basically read the same way but mention different survey years? This is why I consolidated all of the content into a single sentence and included what seemed to be the two most significant references. At the time I said 1 sentence seemed too short but it was meant to be a start. Dennis do you honestly think that mess that was added reads well?

Would you be OK taking the lead sentence I wrote before and adding more to it:

Chrysler's quality and customer satisfaction ratings have been below average according to Consumer Reports and JD Powers since the late 1990s. Consumer Reports has consistently reported Chrysler brands at the bottom of their reliability ratings in the past decade (include most direct reference for the CR data, remove redundant refs) as well as their Automotive Brand Report Card (include one reference). JDP has found similar results over the same time period in both Initial Quality Studies and Customer Service Indexes (refs) as has the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey (ref)

That hopefully cuts things down from 8 repetitive, stacato sentences to three more readable sentences. I hope you can now see why I was not happy with the mess of 8 poorly edited sentences that got dumped into the article as well as why I felt that I had already started to add the information in question back in April and had posed the question to the group as to how to expand my subject sentence. If you don't have other suggestions then I will remove the material I added in April, clean up the text in the "reception" section and look for a better subject heading. I don't care for "reception" when we are talking about a continuous thing, not a single event. A movie gets a reception. Chrysler is an organization that has been selling cars and many other products for nearly 100 years. "Recent quality issues" seems like a better heading as it defines a period for the material under the heading. BTW, it would probably worth our time to find some of the information talking about the quality problems that had roots in the poor Mercedes management/neglect of the company. Springee (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Per my comments above and absent other input I've cleaned up the text in the article. The material is similar but not identical to my proposed text above. I've grouped the CR, and JDP material. I also added the results of the Strategic Vision survey. The overall text in the article is about the same length as before. Springee (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

Could somebody add the Start date and age template from "| foundation = {Unbulleted list| Chrysler Corporation | {start date and age|1925|6|6} | Chrysler Group LLC | June 10, 2009 | FCA US LLC | December 16, 2014 }" to "| foundation = {Unbulleted list| Chrysler Corporation | {start date and age|1925|6|6} | Chrysler Group LLC | June 10, 2009 | FCA US LLC | December 16, 2014 }"?

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

1987 Odometer Scandal

I just saw a 1987 episode of "The Tonight Show" where Johnny Carson makes several jokes about an odometer scandal at Chrysler. Carson explained that several Chrysler managers had taken taken cars off the assembly line (before their odometers had been connected), driven them around, and had the odometers finally connected when they were returned to be sold as "new" cars. The managers justified the odometer fraud as "quality assurance".

I don't see a section about this in the article, or even in the talk archives. However, I am hesitant to add this to the article, as "The Tonight Show" is not a good reference. 173.25.230.210 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's in History of Chrysler. The quantity of content on Chrysler is too great for one article, so many of these events have to be spun off to sub-articles. The main Chrysler article should probably focus on events that altered the direction of the company, for example the high rate of recalls of the Omni in the 1970s was the beginning of Chrysler's bad press, put the company in financial straits, and led to bringing in Iacocca and the later turnaround efforts. The root causes of the Omni problems are connected with what made Chrysler different from Ford and GM, mainly that they were less vertically integrated, and were locked in a boom and bust cash flow. The odometer thing, or several defeat device cases, didn't change the course of the company. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FiatChrysler

I don't think it makes sense that putting "also known as FiatChrysler" right after "Chrysler Group LLC" in bold letters makes sense because, a) Fiat and Chrysler both have their own corporate websites and logos, b) Chrysler is still technically a separate company, c) Fiat is a partial owner, not full owner, of Chrysler, d) The alliance with Fiat is not analogous to the merger with Daimler (see further information below)

The alliance with Fiat is not analogous to the merger with Daimler because Fiat only partially owns Chrysler and Fiat does not pay Chrysler's employees. The Fiat-Chrysler alliance would have to be more analogous to the Renault-Nissan alliance. So Fiat only takes ownership of Chrysler and share technologies with Chrysler. Heegoop, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are only making it more confusing to the reader. --Nithin.danday (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Plus it's not true anymore as Chrysler is now part of Fiat AKA FCA

Tesla

please change ((Tesla)) to ((Tesla, Inc.|Tesla)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are objections I'm going to reverse this change. Why use one company's legal name but not the others? Springee (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What link do you want to pipe to? Not Tesla? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my wiki syntax reversed. I thought the change was to the link name not the wiki article. Yes, direct to the company not the man. Springee (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

"It sells vehicles worldwide under its flagship Chrysler brand, as well as the Dodge, Jeep and Ram."

Really?

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2017

Change this source link back from:

• https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577187152424740014.html

To:

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577187152424740014.html 112.168.249.191 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: changed to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204573704577187152424740014 regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@DRAGON BOOSTER: I know I'm late on this, but be very careful with edit requests like these. This is Nate Speed, who has been making these edit requests since his indefinite block under various proxies. The discussion is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, Jd22292. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624062810/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-06/politics/politics_eastwood-ad-politics_1_chrysler-ad-halftime-show-america-auto-industry?_s=PM%3APOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-06/politics/politics_eastwood-ad-politics_1_chrysler-ad-halftime-show-america-auto-industry?_s=PM%3APOLITICS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625022825/http://cecom.army.mil/historian/docdisp.php?fname=RadarintheUSArmy_byRogerColton.pdf&dirname=Radar to http://cecom.army.mil/historian/docdisp.php?fname=RadarintheUSArmy_byRogerColton.pdf&dirname=Radar
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chrysler.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

Why has the infobox image of the Chrysler building been deleted? Could someone please restore it?--2601:153:800:8308:3813:9EF8:FA5A:C703 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct Logo

Stanotron1600 (talk · contribs) recently made a good faith change to the logo associated with this article. Previously the article showed the Chrysler Pentastar logo. Now it has the Fiat Chrysler America logo. Which should the article use? I think we should use either a historic Chrysler logo or the current Chrysler group logo. I don't think we should use the FCA logo. First, FCA is a separate article and this article is about the Chrysler organization (from inception and through the various mergers/acquisitions). I would note that typically we keep the logo that is associated with the name on the article, not the current owners. For example, the McDonnell Douglas article doesn't feature the Boeing logo. The same is true of RCA Records which is owned by Sony Music. Springee (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To he honest, I think Stanotron1600 is right, the pentastar isn't used anymore by FCA US, LLC. according to its corporate website. I don't think we should pretend we know better that the company itself on this case. McDonnell Douglas and RCA Records are very different cases. The former's article covers a defunct company, not its operations after the Boeing purchase and operation's renaming (which this one do does) and the latter's record label is still used. However, I think the pentastar logo should be included in the "History" section as it's uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But we have a FCA page. I would suggest we use the current Chrysler logo as described here [[9]]. To your point about RCA, Chrysler doesn't use FCA as a logo on their cars. I think your suggestion of previous logos is good. Springee (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But that's not the company logo, it's the one used for the Chrysler marque. And that one is already used in the marque article, so we wouldn't avoid any duplication, we just would be using an incorrect logo for the sake of it. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for including the Pentastar in the History section

Following the above discussion, I propose to include the freely-avalaible Pentastar logo at Commons in the History section, something like this:

The iconic Pentastar logo was used by the Chrysler corporation from 1962 to 1998 as the company symbol. From the 1963 to the 1972 model years, all Chrysler products had a small Pentastar badge. Some products of the flagship Chrysler brand used the Pentastar in the 1980s. The last cars to include the Pentastar were limited editions of the third-generation Plymouth Voyager. In 1998, after the creation of DaimlerChrysler, Chrysler-branded cars adopted a winged badge and the Pentastar was officially eliminated as a corporate logo, although sporadic use remained. When DaimlerChrysler was dissolved, the new Chrysler adopted again the Pentastar as corporate logo until the creation of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

I only will include it on the article if there's a minimum consensus. I know both the style and the wording aren't perfect. If not approved, no worries. I'm also open to wording changes if someone think that either there're mistakes in the facts as presented or the grammar can be improved. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support:. I think that's a good addition to the article. Springee (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this logo better quality? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ChryPly_Blue_Pentastar.jpg And I also find it more representative because that logo had different text next to it in different times. As a corporation logo I mean. Like Chrysler Motors Corporation and in 1980s Chrysler Corporation USA. Using pentastar alone seems to be a better choice. Põdravorst (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

I work at FCA US LLC I would like to rename this article FCA US LLC because it confuses people with the Chrysler branded vehicles as well as the fact that we are no longer called Chrysler Group LLC but FCA US LLC 2600:8805:BC80:5600:958B:1ABE:9DEB:43B8 (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• A consensus needs to be established through a fomal WP:RM move discussion. I actually agree with you, and came to the talk page with the intention of researching such a proposal, and possibly moving Chrysler (brand) to this title. Give me a couple of days and I'll try to make the move proposal,probably to FCA US. - BilCat (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• If it helps, try to understand that we write articles about topics. We don't necessarily write articles about corporate entities, or subdivisions of corporations. The fact that a big corporation has a division or a subsidiary named XYX doesn't necessarily mean we must have a Wikipedia article named XYZ. This article, the article titled Chrysler, is the main, umbrella article on the topic of Chrysler. That is Chrysler construed broadly, all the way back to names like Maxwell-Chalmers and Dodge Brothers, before they even were called "Chrysler". All the way up to the current Fiat subsidiary, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (aka, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.) , a separate article in its own right, which is a sub-topic of the general topic Chrysler.

  We could organize our article around what corporations choose to name their divisions and sub-division, and that culd work. But it so happens that we don't. We happen to be using a different system where the concept is at the top of the hierarchy, and the peculiar names of the business entities are below that. We could switch to the other way, but that would cause a lot of upheaval far and wide, and so here we are. It makes sense from a certain point of view.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  
  

• Now maybe we should be talking about at a different question: should FCA US LLC redirect to Chrysler, or should it redirect to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (aka, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.)? I have no idea. Thoughts? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather the other way round: if there is a redirection, then Chrysler should redirect to FCA US LLC, not the other way round. Chrysler is just a brand of FCA US LLC. Let me quote from the FCA Annual Report for 2017:

In April 2009, Fiat and Old Carco LLC, formerly known as Chrysler LLC (“Old Carco”) entered into an agreement,pursuant to which FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, (“FCA US”) agreed to purchase the principal operating assets of Old Carco and to assume certain of Old Carco's liabilities. Old Carco traced its roots to the company originally founded by Walter P. Chrysler in 1925 that, since that time, expanded through the acquisition of the Dodge and Jeep brands.
Following the closing of that transaction in June 2009, Fiat held an initial 20 percent ownership interest in FCA US. Over the following years, Fiat acquired additional ownership interests in FCA US and in January 2014, Fiat purchased all of the equity interests in FCA US that it did not then hold, resulting in FCA US becoming an indirect 100 percent owned subsidiary.

In this Annual Report one finds also a table of all subsidiaries of FCA NV (page 247 in the 2017 report), of which FCA US LLC is the one which is responsible for FCA's operations in North America. I can't find a company named Chrysler in there. Find the report on the corporate website [10] www.fcagroup.com is the start page of FCA's corporate web.

Chrysler should be just a disambiguation page, indicating among other to the already existing article Chrysler (brand). The company named Chrysler is no more. Chrysler is history, and for this history there might be a separate article in the en.Wikipedia. But for the current subsidiary of FCA, the title "Chrysler" is wrong. Besides the brand Chrysler, the company FCA US manages the brands Jeep, Dodge, and RAM.

--L.Willms (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Chrysler Europe

Did such thing like Chrysler Europe actually exist? It currently seems like it was a some sort of division, subsidiary or a company, basically an entity, without any references. I cannot find any period correct information about it. FCA US website talks about selling European operations in 1978 not about a whole entity, and nether does it mention anything about forming it. There was a Chrysler International SA where Dodge Brothers (Britain) Limited belonged to, but I do not know if Rootes, Simca etc. belonged under it. I think Chrysler Europe should refer to a collection of subsidiaries rather than an entity with subsidiaries or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Põdravorst (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Chrysler Europe --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of that page and beleve that it is also incorrect or misleading because of reasons I mentioned previously. Põdravorst (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Only refrences to Chrysler Europe I can find is Chrysler Europe SA in France which was founded around 1997. And maybe this discussion is under wrong article.Põdravorst (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the opening of the Chrysler Europe article is correct as says "Chrysler Europe was a division (emphasis mine) of the American Chrysler Corporation automotive company". The infobox goes on saying it was a "subsidiary" without given neither the legal, registered name of such company or reliable sources to back that statment. It doesn't seem the case a "Chrysler Europe" intermediate holding company actually existed (there are/were various companies called "Chrysler Europe", but none seem that holding), but all European Chrysler-owned operations operated as a separate business de facto. But as you say, this discussion concerns the Chrysler Europe article. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. It did clear things up. I am continuing this discussion under Chrysler Europe page. Põdravorst (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• We sure do spend a lot of time debating whether or not some part of a corporation is a division or a subsidiary or a brand or whatever. All that matters is that Chrysler Europe was an entity that was under the ownership and control of Chrysler. All of our best quality sources, such as well-researched books about the history of Chrisyler, just call it "Chrysler Europe" and don't bother explaining at all what the specific form of corporate governance was used. The way we know something is unimportant is if our sources treat it as unimportant. Whatever the specific legal ramifications of whether it was called a division or called something else is far too esoteric for an encyclopedia. We've been through this how many times with Mini (marque)? It's a huge time waster. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There was actually an entity called Chrysler Europe, which resulted from Chrysler's ill fated try to repeat what Ford and GM did by investing in Europe. Chrysler Europe grouped the French Simca, British Rootes and Spanish Barreiros companies. In 1979, Chrysler withdrew from Europe and sold Chrysler Europe to Peugeot. Some of current PSA factories are former Chrysler Europe factories; one of the assets sold by Chrysler to Peugeot were the former Rootes factories in Iran. --L.Willms (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

IPA Rendering of Chrysler

The current IPA rendering of Chrysler (/ˈkraɪslər/) doesn't represent a Midwestern accent, which I think is important given that the company is based in Michigan. I'd like to propose replacing or at least adding the rendering /ˈkrʌɪslər/. I'd love to hear input! Friendlyguy420 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)