Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rebuttal not given sufficient mention?

Full title was "I feel the article reads too much like the narrative of the conspiracy is given fact and the articles that suggest the conspiracy narrative are wrong aren't given sufficient mention'

So my subject line hit at what I think is wrong with the article. I'm not sure if people want to call it a conspiracy theory or a conspiracy. I think theory is more appropriate because much of the narrative of the conspiracy is shown to be wrong by several researchers. I would propose the article should have an into that raises the point that this is a conspiracy theory based on some known facts. What I mean by that we know GM and other defendants (should GM really be mentioned more prominently than the others?) are accused of using monopolistic powers to destroy street car lines. We know there was a trial and that the, and I hate to use the term, conspirators were convicted of a crime but not the one that fits the conspiracy narrative. In the end it was decided that the group of companies was not out to wreck public rail transportation but they were guilty of forcing transport lines they owned to buy from themselves. That was probably illegal because the transport companies were not part of a parent company but were instead legally independent companies who's stock was wholly owned by the group of companies.

Anyway, the sources that debunk the narrative advanced by Snell and others are very thorough. I do not believe the current article gives them adequate weight. I would propose changing the layout of the article to something along the lines of:

Intro: Starts saying this is a conspiracy theory (ie people have theorized that a conspiracy existed but it has not been proven). Next talk about the high level version of events (about what the current intro does). Finally state that a significant body of work draws the story or theory into question and offers alternative reasons for the decline street car lines in the US. These works show both errors in the popular understanding of the story (some of the street car lines had already folded by the time the group came to own then through acquisitions), and evidence that the decline was economic in nature (buses were shown to be cheaper and more flexible and initially preferred by riders, cities that were not affected by the conspiracy players saw basically equal drops in street cars.

Major section: The theory and the supporting evidence. This section would be much of what is already in the article. Major section: The, lacking a better term, debunking story. This second does currently exist in the document but it's very weak, almost as if it had to be there but the group didn't really want it there. I think this really should talk about the flaws in the Snell narative (as Snell is the modern champion of the theory). This would be things like correctly claims that the group owned a particular street car line when it was doing well then closed it vs the line was already in bad shape when acquired. This section should also talk about the simple economic issues of buses vs streetcars at the time. Several of the sources go into the economic and consumer preference advantages that buses had at the time.

Thoughts? Willingness to change? Comments?

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.38.115 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC) (Comment was left by Springee, see as thread develops below PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

I would like to add the following section into the article from this article. I think it points out that experts in the field see the who conspiracy as wrong. From the above link, 1974 testimony to Congress citing the errors in Snell's version of events:

I would argue that these [Snell's] interpretations are not correct, and, further, that they couldn't possibly be correct, because major conversions in society of this character — from rail to free wheel urban transportation, and from steam to diesel railroad propulsion — are the sort of conversions which could come about only as a result of public preferences, technological change, the relative abundance of natural resources, and other impersonal phenomena or influence, rather than the machinations of a monopolist.

I mention this to add to my above post. Basically I think the article reads far too much like the events described and the narrative are proven true when the legal case does not support the narrative and a number of scholars have shown that the fall of the streetcar systems was all but certain due to other economic factors which the alleged conspirators didn't control.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.210.191 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (Comment was left by Springee, see as thread develops below PeterEastern (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

• For clarity, would I be right in my assumption that the above two unsigned comments are from the same person. If so then could I ask you to sign-in (or sign-up) to WP so that we can be clear who we are talking to. PeterEastern (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have reinstated the removed section referring to 'who killed the electric car' and added a reference (which mentions both stories) to confirm notability. I have also added a link to the article you mention above to further reading. In the lead I have added a para break before the text "More recently Guy Span, a noted writer on the subject" to add emphasis to his views which I think match yours. Regarding emphasis and balance this article has been accused numerous times of bias, in both directions. Personally I feel that anyone who reads the 400 word intro in its entirety will get a good sense that this there there is more to this than a simple story of good guys and bad guys and that there were many reasons other than GMs actions for the decline. If you wish to propose a new intro then can I suggest that you try something out in a sandbox which we can discuss. I am not against change, indeed I have just made some based on your input, but the intro has stood the test of time and I suggest that it should only be edited after discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have expanded the section on the 1974 inquiry and included your recommended quote from Hilton in full which I think adds balance as you suggest. Interesting to see the near hysterical contributions from the mayors of SF and LA balanced by Hilton's view! PeterEastern (talk)

OK, I found my log in info. I strongly disagree with any mention of the "Who killed the electric car" movie. The reasons are two fold. First, the movie is VERY poor with regards to the very good reasons why GM killed off the EV1. The technology was simply not up to snuff and thus the car wasn't going to ever make money. GM told the feds that these cars would not be on the road long term (it likely got them out of some long term safety testing such as proving the 400V battery would remain safe after 10 years). The NHTSA was not going to let GM tell them one thing then do another. Also, GM had no way to waive liability for harm from that 400V battery. So my first reason is GM's actions were reasonable.

The second reason is the commercial failure of the EV1 has NOTHING to do with the rise or fall of streetcars. You might as well talk about GM's failure in the RV market or GM's exiting the aviation engine business. At the end of the day the EV1 has no relationship to the events claimed in the article. All it can do is illustrate a second, unfair, attack on the corporate character of GM. It serves to bias the reader against the company.

As just the other day I had someone present this article to me as proof that GM did kill off streetcars in the US I strongly disagree that the article doesn't confuse. Based on the sources cited I think it is clear the narrative is simply wrong. When I read it I'm reminded of some vaccine-autism articles where an author would attempt to balance the views of scientists who said the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism and the "researchers" such as Wakefield who claimed it does. The credible work all showed that Wakefield et al were full of it.

In this article we quote Snell as if he were an expert. In fact it would be better to start with a narrative from one of the articles which has debunked the myth and then follow with what parts were true and what parts were confused. I don't think the Guy Span quote is appropriate in this context. It makes it sound like GM really did conspire but that their impact wasn't that great. No, GM and the others wanted to sell their products but they did so by pointing out why their solutions were better. Thanks to Apple and Google RIM is no longer a big player in the cell phone market. Apple certainly waged war on RIM but they did by aggressively making a better product, not via any anti-competitive action against RIM. The same is true of GM with regards to the street car lines.

I would strongly suggest we rework the into to the article. I may put together an sandbox into to see what you think. I have removed the EV car stuff again because I see it as very biasing, based on a very bad source, and simply unrelated to the rest of the article.

I would highly encourage changes which make it clear that the narrative of the story is based on facts but the proponents of the narrative have distorted or told the facts in a way that creates a false picture of the real events. The real events were the streetcar lines generally died out for simple economic and consumer preference reasons. The co-conspirators did not have a significant impact on the decline but instead worked to position themselves to take advantage of the shift when it happened. That is, buying into a streetcar line that was about to convert to buses would ensure they would switch to GM (what about Mac?) made buses rather than a competitor. The companies were not found guilty of attempting to destroy the street car lines. The charge they were found guilty of was a minor one and only related to forcing the line they owned to buy from them. From here the competing narratives can be told.

In the 1960s section it mentions that many cities are starting to bring back light rail. That could be read as suggesting that, absent the influences of the conspirators, light rail would have never left. What we are instead seeing is urban densities are getting high enough where light rail can again make economic sense. Basically the inclusion in this article further suggests that light rail didn't decline due to natural causes.

I will close this by saying I believe those who see the article as biased are correct. Yes, all the needed facts and links are in there but the overall tone is one that seems reluctant to forgive GM for a sin the facts clearly show they didn't commit.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for finding your signin. You can sign your contributions to talk pages using ~~~~ at the end.

I think it probably is fair to draw an analogy between the aggressiveness of current smartphone companies and GM's tactics up to a point - however GM and the rest of them hid behind a number of corporate facades which made fertile territory for conspiracy theories (and I don't believe that Apple etc are doing this). Also... mass use of the private car cripples both bus and streetcar services with traffic congestion, dramatically increasing their costs of their operate (something that a new phone does not do to the older products). The analogy is therefore not 100% accurate. Since that time it has been recognised that use of the private car must be moderated in many ways in most cities if gridlock is to be avoided. I believe that it is important that this point comes out in this article.

Is it not relevant that Snell was an 'an anti-trust attorney for the United States Senate'! By my understanding, he was the person paid by the Senate to give evidence. For sure he got carried away, but that did indicate the level of information that was available, and not available to him about the case. As such I think it is right to give him prominence.

I will give you some space to adjust the article. I am not in 100% agreement with your changes, but would like to see where your changes are taking the article. A bit of rebalancing may well bring benefits.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps better than the cellphone analogy would be someone who swoops in and buys up foreclosed properties. This person makes great money doing it. So this person is basically getting rich taking advantage of the financial failing of others. Is that person wrong? Well they didn't cause the people to foreclose and if they didn't buy up the foreclosure someone else would. We might wonder how they are always there to buy things up but so long as they are never breaking the law and so long as they are always paying fair market value we can't blame the foreclosures on them. As the CBS article I added noted, GM and the others didn't cause the streetcars to fail but they positioned themselves to take advantage of it through totally legal means (well up to the point they forced their subsidiary companies to only buy supplies from the parent companies.

I think two other things should be mentioned. Today we think of these public transit systems as government run entities. At the time the conversions to buses were occurring these were private companies that provided transportation. Thus it was not like the alleged conspirators were closing down publicly funded or owned transit lines. It would be someone like Delta buying a small airline then stopping some flights that weren't profitable.

You mentioned the number of holding and other companies involved with the purchase of the streetcar lines. This doesn't seem at all suspicious to me. If you and several neighbors want to buy a small chain of produce markets it isn't practical for each of you to own some fraction of each stand. It also isn't practical to have one neighbor buy the whole thing and you all give him money for expenses and take money from profits. Instead you set up a holding company that owns all of the stands and runs all of them. You each own a percentage of the holding company. The holding company is how you coordinate the wishes and responsibilities of a number of owners all at once. I had family members who did something like this when my grand father died. He owned a commercial building. Well rather than sell out so each family member could get a share, they decided to keep the building, form a holding company and then each member got a cut of the profits. Thus if you look at who owns the building it would be "The Smith Holding Company" instead of "John, Sanket, Tabby and Mortimer Smith". Additionally, some states will have rules that say a company that owns infrastructure must be located in that state. So the group of companies would set up a holding company in Washington to own a street car line in Seattle. They would set up another company for the lines in Kansas. There is no intent to hide or deceive. The companies were using the legal, corporate structures allowed by the government to operate these multiple holdings. To some extent Steven Ambrose mentions this in his book, "Nothing Like it in the World". It's a book about the making of the transcontinental rail road.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You should however note that far from setting up these companies in the relevant states, putting a name over the door and declaring their purpose as you suggest above, NCL and PCL were incorporated in Delaware, a state which does not require any information about shareholders or directors to be published. This fact, combined with very aggressive business practices (some later proven to be illegal) and a lack of publicly declared intent was probably what led to the outcry and the very strong negative responses of Quinby, Snell and the mayors of SF and LA.

Can I say, you seem to have arrived on a bit of a mission to clear GM's name. I would ask you to stand back a bit and see the story in the round and ask why there was an outcry at the time, in 1974 and why it hasn't been forgotten by now. Why was a Senate inquiry held in 1974, being 20 years after the event. I would find this helpful. Do also remember to sign your posts using ~~~~!

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Establishing companies in Deleware is actually very common and should never be considered suspicious. see [1]. Also remember that the part of the operation that proved to be illegal was not the thing that everyone thinks was the problem. There was nothing illegal about buying the lines and converting to buses. Even if the streetcars had been operating profitably, which generally was not the case, the companies were operating in a legal fashion. The only illegal thing they did was something the courts seemed to think was trivial hence the slap on the wrist. I'm not sure why publicly declared intent should mater. Many companies don't bother to publish what they are doing. When Lucas was making the second Star Wars movie they were very secretive about things because they didn't want people to over charge them, hence Blue Harvest.

I would place little stock in the protests of Quinby, Snell and the SF and LA mayors. Remember that none were operating free of their own motivations. Snell has been shown to be almost totally wrong in the details of his telling. The mayors of SF and LA were bashing GM at the time that CARB was trying to establish CA specific emissions standards for cars. The Big 3 were not happy with the idea of 49 state and separate CA state emissions systems and not without just cause. So for the mayors it was great political theater to talk about the evils of, at the time, the worlds largest company and how they did wrong. I think it's like bashing Walmart today. Often when you look into the sins they are more imagined than real and rarely nefarious.

I can't deny that I think that GM is getting an unfair shake in much of this. For example why isn't it called the Firestone or Standard Oil streetcar conspiracy? Why there was an outcry is because individuals often don't have a good understanding of the facts of the case but are interested in a good story. A classic example is bashing GM for being dumb because they tried to sell a car called the "No Go" in Spanish speaking countries. It makes for a great story but it just isn't true (Snopes has an article on that case). In this case the scholars in 1974 as well as in modern times have all reached the same conclusion. The group of companies (why GM is singled out is not clear to me) did not hasten the fall of the streetcar systems but instead only positioned themselves to take advantage of the inevitable. While people like a good conspiracy story, Wikipedia, as a source of information should strive to tell the facts, not the story. This BTW, is also why I'm very against using Who Killed the Electric Car as any sort of factual reference. Lot's of emotional stories but it largely ignores that GM really did try hard, found that the technology of the time was simply not up to par and due to the way the original cars were sold they could not legally leave them on the road. The emotional stories are great and show that GM didn't have a good plan to capitalize on enthusiasm but that is NOT the same as they were evil and conspiring to protect big oil. That's simply an ignorant lie.

Another example of the public not understanding things is why it's OK that car companies don't spend that extra $X per car... So we hear about some safety feature that a car company "knew about" and if they had just spent an extra $3/car, a price the mother of a child killed in a crash would happily pay, said child would be alive today. It's easy to read such a story and think the car company was evil and needs to be taught a lesson about playing games with people's lives! However, once you go inside of the development process things are far less clear. First, a priori, how can I tell which $2 safety feature I should add? I could double the cost of the car by adding all the possible $2 improvements. So what If I had a budget for 90 "$2" features but I missed the one that would save the little girl. Is the public going to give me credit for all the safety features I did add? Second, the price tag on that saved life isn't $2. It's actually $2x the total number of cars made (say 3 million) divided by the number of lives lost for lack of that feature. If only one life would have been saved then we aren't talking about $2 to save a life but $6,000,000. At some point we can't afford every safety feature to save just one life. Again, I mention this not because it is strictly relevant to this article but because it illustrates how the public can grab hold of a story and buy into its 'truth' even when a critical reading of the facts shows that the story isn't true. Even if we love trains and light rail (I've loved trains since I was in grade school, I had a chance to visit the Japan Rail service center outside of Tokyo) that doesn't mean we should excuse false stories about the decline of something we loved.

BTW, if you read over some of my other contributions I think you can see that what I really value in an article is when you learn "the other side of the story". I was involved in a story on the Corvette's leaf spring because I sat back one day and thought, why would a company with such resources pick "leaf springs", a suspension all of us car people know to be junk? Why would they use these junk springs on their most expensive car but not the cheap ones? That got me to think about the problem (and research it) from the POV of an engineer, not a car person who simply knows leaf springs are bad. What I discovered is that, as used on the Corvette, they are excellent but expensive. That same or of "what is the real story" got me reading articles about the Streetcar story. Slater not only does an excellent job of explaining why we should discount Snell, Quinby and the rest, but also explains why the systems were going down and why changing to buses was a very rational choice at the time even if we don't agree with it today. So I'm sorry this is a bit rambling but in the end I don't think giving GM a fair telling of the story is a mission to clear GM so much as just a mission to tell the whole story. --Springee (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Delaware incorporation is indeed common. My point was however that in this case the secrecy which is part of such registration didn't help when people started worrying about what they were up to, notably when mayors of two major cities became concerned and when the attorney for the Senate tried to figure out what had happened a few decades after the event.

I have to say that I find it hard to respond to such long comments. You are clearly unhappy with the tone of the article. I would prefer it if you suggested and even made concise changes to the article, providing strong references to support them at the same time.

I will at this point note that I am not convinced of you deletion of the electric car reference, or that an unnamed CBS reporter should be quoted in the lead, but as I mentioned earlier, I am giving you space to adjust the article and when you are done we can consider if we are happy with the changes. If you wish to make wholesale changes to the article then I suggest you write that in your sandbox and come back when you are done.

Thank you for signing you posts. Would be great if you indented one further to the right than the last post (and then occasionally outdent if required).

-- PeterEastern (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, about the length, sometimes I can ramble. Before I go any further I wanted to complement you on the work you have done on this article. I don't agree with all of it but all that I have seen suggests you are even handed and level headed in your edits and discussion. If you look at some of my history with the Corvette suspension page you can see that I've dealt with people at the other end. It's much nicer to deal with someone who is respectful as you are.

When I get the chance I will try to put together my idea for a new intro. It will take a bit of time since I want to make sure I do it in a way that you will approve of. These talk posts are by comparison quick and easy.

The fact that Delaware corporations have some level of secretiveness should not be seen as evidence of wrong doing. If a police officer asks someone where they are going and they refuse to answer that should not be seen as evidence they are breaking the law. My point is that just because it was hard for someone who wanted to accuse GM et al of a crime found it hard to get all the information should not be seen as evidence that they were doing anything wrong.

I'm strongly against including any mention of the EV1 or the movie. The movie in question is a VERY unreliable source of information, it would be akin to a historian citing the movie Braveheart as a factual reference. So for that reason the movie should not be mentioned. Furthermore, the link between the EV1 and the Streetcars is simple not there. The streetcar story happened 40-60 years before the EV1 was on the road. One might argue that corporate culture can span past a CEO or two but we are talking about a project that started prior to WW2 when GM was a shooting start company vs GM of the 90s which was largely a company in retreat dealing with many internal and external problems and far off it's position as not only the top dog in the auto world but the top corporation in the world. Thus any claim that this was part of a corporate culture is highly questionable.

The CBS reporter is named in the citation but adding it to the quote would be reasonable.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my input. Keeping contributions to get to the point is appreciated as rambling does put a burden on everyone else. Do please please try to sign your contributions, it is respectful and shows that you are taking care. I notice that you have left a notice on Anmccaff's talk page requesting input on this topic. I would like to draw your attention to WP:CAN, in particular to the comment that "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.". Selecting only Anmccaff, who has strong views on this subject, could be seen by other contributors as violating that.

Regarding Delaware, you still seem to be missing my point. All I was saying was that Delaware registration made it hard for people at all times to understand what GM and others were doing and not doing. This led to concern and in some cases panic, rightly or wrongly. We disagree on EV1 - lets leave that one for another time. Ok, so the CBS reporter is named, but seems to report very widely on business topics. I still don't get why his voice should be picked out. Span yes, because he has researched the topic at huge length and is widely respected for this; random reporter, I suggest not.

I look forward to seeing further suggestions of how to improve the article.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing. If you check my history you can see that I haven't been posting in a while and I'm out of practice hence forgetting the signature. I left a note with Anmcaff because he left a note with me. I haven't read everything he has posted so I can only say I share his general view that the article in question seems to suggest that the general story is true and GM was largely responsible for the fall of many streetcar systems. You may not agree that the article reads that way but I hope you do agree that there is sufficient evidence in the links provided on the page that we can conclude the actions of GM et al. didn't appreciably affect the decline of streetcar use in the US.

I think I saw your point about the Delaware company thing making it hard for people to see what is going on. However, I don't agree that we should assume that is why GM et al. used Delaware incorporations vs because they are very well known, and have standard laws that lawyers in all states should be familiar with.

I would agree that the CBS reporter is once removed from the evidence. I would be happy to find a quote from say Slater that says something similar. I don't think the quote that says GM was declaring war on traction is quite fair because it could be read as GM was going to use underhanded means vs GM was going to win via providing solution the public preferred. --Springee (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why go for any tertiary sources, which this article needlessly depends on, when secondary and primary are readily available? The actual testimony of both Snell and Hilton is readily available online.Anmccaff (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record Anmccaff's comment on Spingee's talk page was "I was wondering if you could take a look at my talk page. Now that there is at least one other participant looking at streetcar-decline from a reality-centered perspective, I might want to get active on it again myself".

My alarm bells are ringing however, because we got to the point with Anmccaff where the next dispute would have resulted in us referring the issue to one of the dispute boards. I am also very concerned that we have two contributors with strong views on this subject, both of whom do not currently contribute to any other subject on WP, who have now arranged to work together on this article.

Springee: Can I suggest that you review the discussions on talk page here between various contributors and Anmccaff (all under the heading 'Six sections, all started by one contributor and all largely unresolved'). I would also ask you to read the section on his talk page where I politely asked Anmccaff to use more measured language. You may also wish to consider if you will work with Anmccaff on his alternative article in his sandbox which he started but then left? I for one need to understand how you want to play this one.

Others: I am conscious that I am the only person responding to Spingee on this. Could others chip in if they have a view on the above. I for one have been encouraging Springee to stop talking on this talk page and start making well considered and referenced changes to the article which we can then talk about. With Anmccaff involved again the situation may get more confused. It would not however be appropriate for me alone to be speaking for the article alone.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

PeterEastern, I can see why you are concerned with Anmccaff's comments. Please be assured that I don't want to go down any nasty edit paths. I had to deal with that on another topic a while back. I don't know that my views are any stronger than yours on this subject. I think we both want a good article. Claiming that I don't currently contribute is a red herring. If you check my history you will see I have contributed to a number of WP pages including this one. In fact you and I talked about this edit, rewrite two years ago. Link. At the time I became very busy and never got around to doing the work. That said, I know you have been watching after the page and I wanted to avoid any edit conflicts so I thought it would be best to have a conversation here vs just making edits without getting inputs from other--Springee (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)s.

I appreciate your reassurances. I had forgotten that you had created a proposed major change to the article on your talk page, to which you have just provided a link. That is helpful. I suggest we close this section now (unless others which to comment) to avoid confusion. It has got too long and you have already started a new one below. PeterEastern (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Etiquette

Just to note that Anmccaff is making edits to the article, so is clearly around, but has not responded to the dangling threads above. This unfortunately fits with a pattern we have seen earlier, where he makes claims on talk without suitable references to support them and then doesn't engage with the ensuing conversation where clarification is requested. His recent changes to the article also require citations, which I have requested. He has provided an interim reference for one of them, but acknowledges that it is not of a high standard, and we await citations for the others. I am still of the opinion that he brings a valuable perspective to the article even though he doesn't engage in the way we could reasonably expect, and even though he comes with a strong POV which we will need to temper from time to time! PeterEastern (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My concern is the strong POV without supporting sources. The more issues contrary to the status quo that Anmccaff presents, the more he needs to support every statement. He clearly wants to redirect the tone and substance of the article. It cannot be based on WP:OR no matter how fervently he believes it. Trackinfo (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, you seem to be the one with a "strong POV without supporting sources." All you have is Snell, and his parrots, who are all rather thoroughly discredited within the article and within Wiki, to say nothing of within primary and secondary sources. Perhaps it -is- time for a little adult supervision here; is there a workable mechanism to notify all the parties on the talk page -archives included, before it hits the dispute board?Anmccaff (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new section for this, because this seems to be turning into something different from the earlier conversation. Anmccaff: My requests to you have remained consistent (and apply to everyone here): Be polite. Provide sources for your claims. Respond to reasoned questions raised by others on talk in response to threads or claims that you make. While I am at it, I will remind you again to create a profile (possibly brief) on your user page. Until you agree to do that I am not inclined to pick up on yet another thread of the type you have just started. As I have said a number of times, I value your knowledge, but you won't be respected until you present it thoughtfully and follow basic social rules. PeterEastern (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PE illustration.

"Pacific Electric Railway 'red car' streetcars stacked in an LA junkyard in 1956, the fate of which cannot reasonably be associated with the actions of GM et al."

Then why have it there at all?Anmccaff (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the sentence should have been stopped at 1956. The rest of it is not even in decent English. Trackinfo (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed the caption as suggested. PeterEastern (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So why, again, is it there at all?Anmccaff (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Suggest changing to: The Great American streetcar scandal refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by major transportation-related corporations who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many cities in the United States in order to increase demand for their products.

I think that more clearly puts the context of the article into a nutshell, what a lede should do. GM and the other convicted co-conspirators are then listed together in the second paragraph.

-- Trackinfo (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That takes as a given that there was a program to eliminate transit, or effective transit, which isn't at all supported here.Anmccaff (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a conviction for conspiracy in court. Anmccaff, you added the phrases of eliminate transit or effective transit. What they were convicted of is the strategy of gaining ownership in order to monopolize the purchase of new equipment, their products. The elimination of rail streetcar lines was just a tactic in that conspiracy. The broader concept of effective transportation and the social ramifications of the change may be inevitable things we only figured out after the fact. Trackinfo (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If this article were merely about strong-arming particular local operators, most of the words following the lead would be superfluous. Are you accepting that there was no big, overarching evil plot, and this merely reflected which buses would replace clapped-out streetcar systems in a very limited number of places?Anmccaff (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I think GM et al. are getting an unfair shake in the court of public opinion with this one. That said, I think it's perfectly OK to to describe what I've called it, popular narrative. It's like starting off a story about the Chevy Nova sales in Latin America with a story about the car not selling well because the name meant "No Go" in Spanish. The story is wrong but leading with the story, true or false is fine with me. --Springee (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That assumes there is a single, coherent story; if you hang in either folkloric or rail history circles, you see countless variants. It's also ignoring one of my largest objections to this article: it is cited in other, otherwise better wiki pieces as an explanation of streetcar decline in the US.Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that when it comes popular legend type stories one of the problems is trying to tell the example narrative. Still I think in this case it is OK to tell an example so long as it's clear that it is an example of a legend and make clear what is proven fact vs someone's claims. I think Snell's version of events makes for the good legend because it was both influential in the thinking of others and so often wrong in facts and details. As for an different article on Wikipedia citing this story as a reason for streetcar decline, honestly, that isn't the fault of this article so much as a flaw in the other article. I would be better if the other article wanted to claim it's a popular claim but not supported based on the evidence. --Springee (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that my silence does not indicate support. Please be cautions of discussing the subject only with each other and concluding that you have consensus on this. Any changes will need to be considered and be supported by good references, PeterEastern (talk)

GM or GM et al. or et al.?

This section developed quickly into a discussion about the name and if it should be changed. It concluded with a general consensus that we should not propose a name change at this time, even though no contributors were 100% happy with the current one.'PeterEastern (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Should GM really be singled out in much of the discussion of what happened here? I understand that most of the recent articles (post 1975) seem to focus on GM as the bad guy or GM as the company that didn't do all those bad things. However, prior to Snell's testimony I find little that suggests that GM should be the entity placed front and center. I bring this up because on of the recent edits changed "GM et al." to "GM". If I understand the history correctly we had several holding companies that were owned by a consortium of investor companies. So if for example NCL decided to invest in X is it correct to say "GM decided to invest in X"?

I suspect Snell focused on GM because in the later half of the 1960s there was serious talk of breaking up GM on anti-trust grounds. When you combined GM's prominent position and the environmental movements of the early 70s and the focus on cars in general I can see why GM would have been picked as the "front company" by someone trying to make a good story. It also might have been due to GM's attacks on Nader. All of the above paragraph is speculation on my part.

Anyway, prior to Snell it seems the story was focused on the actions of the holding companies. The investing companies were referred to as a group. Snell seems to have singled out GM and articles since seemed to have focused on GM almost as if they expected that GM and GM alone was the inventing actor. So, should the article ever say "GM did X"? Instead, should it do the following:

• When quoting of course follow the quote.
• When talking about things done by the holding companies refer to the holding company in question, "NCL did X".
• When talking about actions of the investing companies refer to them either by name, as some sort of group ("the investing companies", "the alleged conspirators" etc) or perhaps, and not my favorite, as "GM et al.".
• Only say "GM did X" when it was GM and not the group (GM et al.) nor the holding companies (NCL) that did the thing.

Thoughts?

--Springee (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The article name was changed as a result of this discussion, unnecessarily (my opinion) changing the attribution to just one of the five convicted conspiring corporations. It had been named the Great American streetcar scandal which is less directed exclusively at GM. Trackinfo (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I recall the name change. I didn't agree with it but since I missed all the talk I wasn't going to bring that old subject back up. As part of the discussion it was mentioned that GM was the only one of the companies that was fined. That doesn't seem to be the case when I read the appeal of the 1947 trial. Do we have any reference other than Snell who claims only GM was found guilty? I mean looking at the appeal it appears that GM wasn't the originator of this whole plan but instead was approached by others and decided it made business sense. --Springee (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who made that change. The original by PeterEastern said "GM at al." This typo could have meant either "et al." or "at all". So I took the easy way out and made it a simple "GM", figuring that PeterEastern would make a further correction if my change wasn't right. There was no grand scheme behind this, just trying to fix a typo. I'm not particularly for or against "GM et al".  Stepho  talk  01:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, when I went back and looked at the change you made I realized it was a typo and your "at all" was a totally legit way to read it. Please don't take this as an attack on your work. It's more that it got me thinking again. As I've been reading the material recently it struck me that the historic documents didn't single out GM as the primary culprit. That seemed to have been a later thing. Two years back, before PeterEastern really went after the article, one of the edits I tried to make was to replace singular references to GM with ones that included all of the alleged conspirators. So I would still be interested to hear what people think about moving from referring to GM to referencing the whole group.--Springee (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hadn't spotted my typo, I had intended it to read 'et al.' which it now does! Thanks. For the record, I didn't agree with the move from 'Great American Streetcar Scandal' either. Can't remember if and how I engaged with any debate at the time, but I seem to remember there wasn't a lot of vocal opposition and I stood aside from the decision and let it go through. Given our current understanding of what happened I would support a review of the decision with a proposed move back to the earlier title. That is not to day, however, that I think GM was an innocent, maligned party in this, but I think it is wrong to associate GM alone with a conspiracy right up there in the title as the article does currently. PeterEastern (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, so I have now refreshed my memory re the original discussion about the move to the current title in 2011. It seems to have been discussed pretty thoroughly, I was more involved than I remember and changed my view to support the move during the debate. I only say that as it contradicts my last comment. PeterEastern (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So with three of us now in agreement, would this be a good time to suggest we start the process to move it back? Trackinfo (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm indifferent on the name change. While I think the article should avoid singling out GM as I mentioned above I do have mixed feelings on the name change. First, I would like to avoid making it look like the topic is flip flopping. It seems the original title and this one are both inventions of the Wiki authors who wanted to cover the subject but were looking for the correct name for an event that doesn't seem to have a single name. As an example, what would we call an article dispelling the myth that the Chevy Nova didn't sell well in Spanish speaking countries. We might all be familiar with the tail but probably not by any one name. Second, although I do feel the current title unfairly singles out GM, I think in popular culture more people know of this story as something related to GM. If we were to call it the Firestone Streetcar Conspiracy I suspect no one would have a clue about it. So even if the title unfairly accuses, in my opinion, GM of wrong doing, I guess if that is the title most are familiar with it should stand. I was more interested in changes in the article so when it is said that "GM did X" and the source is Snell we should make it "Snell accused/claimed/stated GM did X" or "According to Snell GM did X".

If the group would like to change the name back to the old name I would support it but I don't think it's a necessary change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not too fussed either way. If we did then to respect the outcome of the 2011 discussion, can I suggest we should review the arguments put forward last time, and then if we want to open the discussion again based on new information or simply because we think the conclusion was wrong last time that we start another formal consultation process on this page, alert the people who contributed to the discussion last time and then give people at least 7 or more days to chip before coming to a conclusion? How about working on the article first until we are happy and then see if we would like to do this? PeterEastern (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is the title of the article starts us off in the premise that this all came from a single cause (GM). The crux of this discussion, from whatever direction, is this was caused by multiple factors (either the actions of co-conspirators and sub-conspirators, or by forces of economics and social patterns). There will be plenty of arguing as to attributing cause of the result, but I don't think anybody will argue it came from this single cause. Trackinfo (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that we should not start a discussion on a change of the name of the article for now? If so then I suggest we treat this section as closed. That is not to say that a name change can not be discussed in the future. PeterEastern (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My purpose in starting this section wasn't to discuss changing the name. I'm OK with changing the name but I'm not motivated enough to fight for the change. That said, I was more concerned about references in the article that claim "GM did" rather the group of companies or the holding companies. Certainly almost every move of the holding companies was done by those companies and with the buy in of all of the investing companies. I've basically seen no evidence to suggest that GM is more responsible for any action than any of the other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, in which case I invite you to make carefully changes to the article to better reflect the sources. Lets consider this section closed - it is long enough - and the central discussion about a name change has concluded with agreement that the name should not be changed, at least at this time. PeterEastern (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Should Snell be treated as being a reliable source?

This section was initially title 'Discussion of source quality', but developed a focus around Bradford Snell's reliability as a secondary source for factual information. It led to a conclusion that while he did play an important role in the development of the story, and that his views are notable, he should not be used as a reliable secondary source given how frequently his evidence has been shown to be suspect. The discussion resulted in a number of changes to the article. PeterEastern (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to start a new section to discuss the quality of sources cited. PeterEastern was right to comment that the CBS article I added to the intro was not a primary or secondary source but instead a tertiary source where a reporter is telling us what others have researched on the subject. In reviewing the sources I don't know that we have a large range of really high quality sources. Many appear to be news articles or other sources with no citations. For example I don't think Guy Span's work on the subject should be given more weight than Slater's. Snell's work on the subject has been discredited by other researchers who have shown factual errors in Snell's version of events. Thus according to Wiki guidelines his work should be viewed as unreliable and only cited to show that he said X vs that X actually happened. Thoughts, comments?--Springee (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For the interest of other followers of this discussion, WP:PS provides useful guidance on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Springee, can I ask you to propose specific changes. If you believe that the article should read 'xx said that A is B' rather than simply 'A is B' then do it. If you want replacement lead entirely then construct your proposed text in your sandbox area and present this for discussion (you may have already done this however). If you want to change the entire article then please do that in your sandbox - I hope this will not be your approach. I am sure we can make the article better, but I personally am not prepared to have a long discussion about sources in theory - I have spent enough time doing that with another party on this talk page recently. I am sure we can be more efficient than that.

Regarding Snell. I do agree that he was too emotional and stated too many things as fact that turned out to be false later to be trusted as a source of fact without further sources. What is a fact however is that he was an attorney paid by the Senate (do you agree that this is true?) and that his evidence must have been very influential at that time he gave it (agreed?) also that the factual errors indicated how much confusion there still was in the 1970s as to what exactly had and had not taken place all those years ago (agreed?). The lack of transparency should be a key theme of this article, alongside information about what actually happened and how the story evolved over the decades.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What I will do (and I hope to get the time to do it soon) is copy the article into my sandbox as is then make changes so the article can be seen in comparison to the current article without changing the current article.

I agree that Snell and others who have been found to be inaccurate should still be quoted in terms of "Snell claimed X" or Snell was X and testified about X. I also agree that many in the 1970s and even today are not clear as to what happened. I think that is in part because people have taken this story as run with because it fits their political POV. An example would be someone who is anti-car and in favor of a new light rail system using this as an example of the evils cars and proof that light rail would be economically viable, it was only a problem because external forces killed it. If you had that POV then this story would be compelling. I also think that people in general seem to embrace the idea of conspiracies and insider plans when often simple economics and motivations provide a better answer. Hence people find it easier to believe that GM bought lines, killed the streetcars then sold buses vs cities evolved in a way that made buses and personal cars more attractive to private citizens and thus they voted with their feet and the streetcar lines died out. Anyway, it appears we agree on the sources. Honestly, EV1 aside it appear we agree on quite a bit! --Springee (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that Snell was not necessarily a major participant in the the Senatorial anti-trust braintrust; and that his submission was as a private party, emphatically disavowed by the committee and its chairman; that the rebirth of the folktale only gathered steam about 2 decades after the Senate hearings. At the time in rail circles, which still were part of mainstream reporting -see Harre Demoro, for example- Snell's thesis was openly jeered. Anmccaff (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Anmccaf: Interesting claims which would be notable and notable if reliably sourced. For the benefit of others could you please provide references for all the claims made that I have marked with 'citation needed' I had not heard of Harre Demoro before, but have now read this, sourced to him, that appears to confirm the aggressiveness and secrecy referred to in the article: [2]

In 1974, Snell was three years or less out of law school, two years since the bar exam, of which at least a year was spent, without apparent output under their name, at Brookings - although seemingly supported there by PIRG or an affiliate. (see "Alfred P. Sloan: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management" p385, p415.) This was not a veteran lawyer, or one with extensive experience.Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Noted. PeterEastern (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• He may have been young, but was apparently employed by the Senate in the role of 'Assistant Council of the Subcommittee of Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate'.[3][4] Do you disagree?

That Snell's submission was private, not official is covered on pages 2203, 2326 and page 1839 (the intro to his testimony) in "Ground Transportation Industries". Hart explicitly disavowed it as his or the committee's position. It was also noted on page 1839 or 1840 that Snell's work was not researched for the Senate.Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I assume you are referring to the transcript of the hearings. Do you have an online reference which covers the sections you refer to? That would be very helpful. PeterEastern (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now identified the documents you referred to. PeterEastern (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The committee does clearly state that the views that Snell presented were his views, are not the committee's considered views, and also the committee had created confusion by binding his submission in a way that implied that it was their view.[5] This does not, however, clarify if he researched and drafted the document in his capacity as 'Assistant Council' or in a purely personal capacity as you claim. It would seem weird, would it not, for him, as assistant council to the committee, to make a contribution personally that ended up in a Senate binding! I do agree that his tone if very unprofessional, unless one considers the style of a prosecution lawyer in a criminal trial - who makes allegations, and seeing what sticks - I also note that his document was distributed in Feb 1974, prior to the hearings in April 1974 and was referred to numerous times during the hearings, implying possibly that it was an important part of the Senate's evidence. PeterEastern (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What examples do you have of scholarly or official use the story between, roughly, '76 and '90? IOW, I don't think I'm the one that needs a cite here.Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, nearly every mention of Snell throughout "Ground Transportation Industries," is to correct an error or a misperception. This was most often done by Hilton, on whom Snell claimed to have based much of his "American Ground Transport." As the gentleman who sometimes writes as "Guy Span" has pointed out, and has been quoted in this article, Snell's reputation for scholarship is minimal. Reading the primary documents shows this was true from the first. Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of Demoro? Weren't quite sure if you had the right Hilton? What do you think this suggests? Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please! It suggests that I am listening and learning. It suggests that is a few years since I worked on the article in massive detail and researched the relevant source materials. Anmccaff, you do bring useful knowledge to the table, but I do wish that you could do so with a bit more grace! Having said that I will try to put the style to one side and respond to the facts you present. PeterEastern (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Harre Demoro of the San Francisco Chronicle writes [in his book The Key Route] : “Pacific City Lines was headquartered in Oakland and specialized in acquiring smaller transit systems and converting them from rail to bus. The Key System was among its largest targets at the time [January, 1941], and [Key System president] Lundberg moved quickly to avert a takeover.” This 1941 takeover attempt was only made publicly known at a PUC hearing in 1955, because the request by the Key System (GM-controlled) attorney to delete it from the public record was denied. The Key System was not so lucky in 1946... (continues)"

...and? The Fitzgeralds were looking for troubled transit companies; that isn't at issue. Note that Demoro didn't write the second, dubious sentence in your quote.Anmccaff (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Springee: I strongly encourage you to start by making individual adjustments to the current article, supported by good references. I for one will strongly resist a wholesale rewrite of the article that has stood the test of time without this first state. If it becomes clear to more contributors that major surgery as you proceed then so be it. I would encourage you to make a few changes that we can discuss, and then make a few more. That will be easier for you, and also for everyone else who is interested in this article, and will avoid creating a showdown later between two majorly different texts which often doesn't end well.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me state that from watching political articles I get suspicious when somebody so aggressively tries to discredit one established source and forcibly push a POV. I'm sensing a loudly quacking duck. So I feel there is no credible reason to remove Snell's testimony that we have believed for 40 years. If you can build a forcible case behind it, maybe a paragraph explaining clearly how sources discredit Snell would be appropriate, kind of like how explaining how scientists re-evaluated the status of Pluto and are re-evaluating it again. But that duck is quacking so loudly that I don't like to offer such a compromise so redly. Mainly I'm letting you all know I'm trying to watch the discussion and generally support Peter Eastern's level headed WP:NPOV guidance of it. Trackinfo (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Trackinfo: I do hope you were not referring to me with regards to your comments. I'm asking these things because I don't want an edit war. There was a bit of an edit war when I was working on this article years back. I totally agree that we should not remove Snell's testimony. I think his statements form a critical part of the story. However, I think enough of Snell's statements have been shown to be inaccurate that his testimony should not be considered a reliable source. Thus it would be reasonable to state that Snell said "X" as well as that author [name here] said this about Snell's testimony, "[things that discredit his testimony]". --Springee (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Springee, personally I think we should make adjustments to the article based on the arguments being put forward by yourself and Anmccaff. I haven't met a WP contributor as abrasive an unhelpful as Anmccaff for a very long time, possibly never, but if one puts that aside he comes with some plausible points and is clearly very well read. At about the same time you have arrived back with a desire to do some work on the article. I do think we have to be careful and insist on very good references for any changes. I have asked Anmccaff for a couple just now. Where this takes us we will have to see, but lets give it a go. This does not look 100% like a duck to me! PeterEastern (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I have now made a number of changes to the section that relates to the 1970s which I think covers the concerns raised by Anmccaff above, to the extent that I am able to without further input from him. In particular I have:

• Given more details about the context of the 1974 hearings
• Clarified the role that Snell held within the Senate, his inexperience and his training
• Noted that Snell's research was sponsored by a foundation
• Noted that although his paper was bound as if it was the view of the Senate, that it was his view
• Have introduced a new section break for 'Since 1980', given that the feel of this period was very different from the 1970s.
• Have quoted from Snell's 1995 article to highlight his single-minded (and seemingly blinkered) view on the subject
• Have repositioned the 'cultural impact' section to allow 'Other Factors' to all Other Factors to come straight after the history section, where people will read straight into all the other reasons for the decline
• Have add brief mention of 'Taken for a ride' and 'End of Suburbia' in the 'Since 1980' section as these are mentioned in the lead and relevant
• Have reorganised some of the references for clarity

I am not planning to do more re Snell at present and would be happy to get feedback and input from others on these changes. I would like it if all the references quoting Snell relating to matters of fact were replaced with references to more reliable sources, such as Hilton, but I don't have the time for that now. Thoughts? I am still concerned that I am the only one editing this article in an meaningful way. It is not my intention to dominate it and I do encourage others to make their own changes, with suitably references of course.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

PeterEastern, I think you have done a really nice job of cleaning things up and using the input of Anmccaff as well. There are a few places where the article cites Snell as reference rather than to stated what Snell has said. I'm going to post my thoughts here rather than edit the article to get group input first.

• Under Early years the first sentence talking about Sloan references Snell's testimony. Do we have an alternative source?
• Under Conversion there is a citation to a posting on the Modern Transit Society website. That article provides no citations and reads with a strongly biased POV. I would suggest that it may not be a reliable source regarding a claimed hostile takeover attempt and records not being public.

Anyway, overall I think the article is much cleaner now so hats off to PE for his efforts!--Springee (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I do agree that the we should replace the above sources. I have clarified that the first is a claim of Snell rather than fact. I agree that the 2nd could be considered to be a 'self-published' source - see WP:SELFPUB and should be replaced. There is strong evidence to me however that the claim is true. Possibly it is worth looking in the hearings the article refers to directly. Note that there is separate mention to similar arrangements being kept secret on this talk page re Key Systems which might be useful. PeterEastern (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Update: I have been thorough the article up to the 1970s section moving all but one claim of Snell's to the 1970s section. The remaining claim I have marked as 'dubious'. It would be great if we could replace it. PeterEastern (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinby

"Some suggest that this program played a key role in the decline of public transit in cities across the United States; notably Edwin J. Quinby, who drew widespread attention to the program in 1946"

"Dubious|Several sources used for the article imply the opposite; that EJQ was a voice crying in the wilderness; the source that claims the centrality of AGT to the 4th subcommittee hearing does the same for Snell.|date=October 2014" There was no contemporary positive "widespread attention" for either.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the need for a reference. I have added a one claiming that it was Quinby's activities that led to the Federal investigation, court case and conviction.[6] It seems from that article that GM's 'The Truth About American Ground Transport' would be worth have a look at. Are you able to access it? PeterEastern (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• You consider Modern Transit a credible cite? More to the point, wouldn't it be better to research the matter before shopping for sites that prove a preselected thesis?
• Hard copies of AGT, with citations, are difficult to get a hold of except at (US) Federal Depository Libraries, and law libraries in the US and Canada, and of course through the paid services like Heil and Proquest. However, the University of Michigan's (if memory serves) copy is available through HathiTrust. This link should get you straight to the index, but, since you aren't a member of a member institution, most likely, you can't download it as a whole, only page by page.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability of 'Who killed the electric car'

This section was prompted by the removal of Who killed the electric car from the see also section by Springee and it's reinstatement by PeterEastern. PeterEastern (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. I also do not support Springee's removal of the EL to Who Killed the Electric Car? Trackinfo (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since it was mentioned above I wanted to bring this up. I think any mention of the movie Who Killed the Electric Car is out of place in this article. First and most important, the events are at all related. The historic events discussed in this article occurred, largely prior to WW2 with a trial just after the war. That puts the EV1 50-70 years into the future. I think that means enough time has pasted to say the two things are unrelated in time. There is no way the EV1 events or the managers who shaped them could have had any impact on the streetcar related actions of half a century earlier. Second, The EV1 would represent a personal road going car vs a rail based public transport so it is no more relevant than a discussion of who killed the Chevy Cavalier. Third, the movie, in terms of a historical document, is only slightly better than Braveheart. Long on emotion but short on facts and often reason. Thus it does not rise to Wiki's standards for a reliable source. For these reasons I think the movie link should be removed. --Springee (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

While we are on questionable sources, this article uses Louis Guilbault as a source. That's several levels below Braveheart in concern for accuracy.Anmccaff (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case it appears that questionable or not, the source presents only a simple fact of who founded the company and when. If the source is unreliable (I didn't read through enough of it to decide for myself) I would suggest we find a different source for that information. It would seem to be uncontroversial and thus easy to find an alternative citation.--Springee (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, while I disagree with PeterEastern's reversing my edit, I think he is doing a really good job with the edits. Hats off again!--Springee (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation Springee. Regarding Who Killed the Electric Car, here is my evidence for notability.[7] The quote is "The movie ended with the recall by GM of all the vehicles, whose leasees had come to love them. All the cars were crushed. It was a depressing story well told by director Chris Paine. It reminded me of the broad outlines of the infamous (ooh, there's that name again … ) General Motors streetcar conspiracy". You might disagree with his view, but The Guardian is very reputable paper and it made the linkage, not me. It is my view that we should reintroduce the briefest mention in the body of the article on the basis of the link. PeterEastern (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of the Grauniad's stature, this is a cultural reference by a film critic. If it belongs at all, which it don't, it belongs with Roger Rabbit.Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Over use of dubious tag

I have been playing catch and mouse in the article responding to uses of the 'dubious' tag recently. Can I refer the contributor in question to WP:DUBIOUS which contains guidance on when to use, and how to use the tag. In particular to the following guidance:

• If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate, correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to verify it properly. Please also add to the article citations for any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources.
• If you cannot correct it right away

1. First, insert a "Dubious" section in the talk page to describe the problem. (Please don't mark up the article text without first describing the problem on the talk page.)
2. Insert after the relevant sentence or paragraph (add the correct month and year to the template).

(Or insert replacing 'talkpage section' with the appropriate section on the talk page, if one already exists.)

Given that the latest problem has not been described on the talk page I am going to simply remove the tag from the article and invite the contributor to raise their issue here. Needless to say, if anyone does raise an issue on talk then they are expected to engage with any subsequent discussion on the topic, and realise that a resolution may take a few days.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe I should just put it in the title?Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Utilities Holding Act

"Who Is Behind This Campaign To Separate The Obviously Economical Combination Of Electric Railway And Its Power Plant?" Aside, of course, from FDR, Wheeler, Rayburn, some LaFollette Republicans, most populist Democrats....where's the actual mystery here? While some clearly see the effect on streetcars as an unfortunate unintended consequence, most of the PUHCA support base shared Hearst's dislike of "traction" interests, and there is a real possibility that the administration saw this as a way to encourage rural electrification on the cheap.Anmccaff (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anmccaff, as always you are full of new connections and information. A couple of questions:

• Would I be right in interpreting the above with the addition of wlinks to mean: "Aside, of course, from Franklin D. Roosevelt, Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Senator Sam Rayburn, LaFollette Republicans, most populist Democrats....where's the actual mystery here? While some clearly see the effect on streetcars as an unfortunate unintended consequence, most of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 support base shared William Randolph Hearst's dislike of "traction" interests, and there is a real possibility that the administration saw this as a way to encourage rural electrification on the cheap". PeterEastern (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Lord, no. You would be right in interpreting it to mean "why the hell is this section even included?" It's unclear, still, exactly what EJQ meant by it. It might have been a genuine belief in hidden machinations. It might have been a slam against Democrats. It may have been a reminder of the devastating effects that federal actions had had on electric rail -first the ship-by-truck movement and involuntary pay increases, then the release of surplus vehicles, then the attack on Stone & Webster, then the difficulty most private transit had in working with WPA road improvement projects, the the Holding Act. It may have just been generic political smear speech. What the person writing as Guy Span means here is also a bit unclear, but one way or another it has very little to do with the article's core subject. If this were a full-length book, it might be worth a mention this size.Anmccaff (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are of course free express your personal views. I was simply asking you to confirm that I have linked to the correct articles re PUHCA, La Follette, Hearst, Wheeler and Rayburn. Do you also refer to this Stone & Webster? In which case can you elaborate on why? I am not familiar with this. PeterEastern (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong LaFollette. That's Young Bob, Old Bob was the eponymous version. Stone & Webster tried to run local interurbans and streetcars when the SEC wasn't actively sniping at them.Anmccaff (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed the LaFollette link above. By SEC I assume you mean the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission? I note that Stone & Webster had to divest holdings after the PUHCA Act was passed.[8] PeterEastern (talk)

Went back well before that. Remember, despite the tenor of this article, electric traction's decline probably began well before WWI, and was an established fact after it.Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Traction interests" that you say Hearst disliked, is this the sort of thing that you are referring to:

1. "Smith-Hearst battle of wow - Here Mr. Hearst Infers that tho New York traction Interests favored Davis, and the same Interests friendly to Smith, hence Smith favorcd Davis."[9]
2. "FORD SAYS SMITH IS TOO'FRIENDLY WITH TRACTION INTERESTS Lines Up Ex-Governor's Business Associates and Comes Out for Hearst."[10]
3. The traction trusts referred to in the film Citizen Kane: "TRACTION TRUST EXPOSED," "TRACTION TRUST BLEEDS PUBLIC WHITE," "TRACTION TRUST SMASHED BY INQUIRER" and "Soon, Thatcher sits down and Kane explains how he is really "two people" - he is both a major stockholder in the Public Transit (he owns "eighty-two thousand, three hundred and sixty-four shares of Public Transit Preferred"), a trust he is attacking, and also the dutiful publisher of a newspaper representing the interests of the public against the trust.[11]

-- PeterEastern (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. (All of which are already referred to in the article or its cites, BTW.) Trolley-bashing was nearly a full-time job for your average machine pol; this is almost the entire reason why NYC went bus. It had next to nothing to do with GM or Yellow, or Hertz.Anmccaff (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'your average machine pol'? PeterEastern (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A machine politician, like Hylan. Political_MachineAnmccaff (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hylan as in John Francis Hylan, mayor of New York? From his WP article I note that he was helped in his election campaign by Hearst because he 'shared with him a desire for municipal ownership of utilities' - would a good example of this be that electricity generation should be run by public interests not by private interests such as traction companies? Also that he 'railed against "the interests" and put in motion the building of a publicly owned and operated subway system, which became the Independent Subway System (IND) division of the New York City Subway'. By 'interests' is the article referring to 'traction interests' or something wider? This article also mentions Hylan with particular reference to Standard Oil. His WP article quotes him as saying "let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller–Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes" Would I be right that he was against prvate medling of all types, but his main concern was traction, electricity generation and bankers? The fact that Standard Oil was involved with GM in this story as well as being linked to banking is incidental? PeterEastern (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course Mayor Hylan, yes. Exactly which species of populist he was doesn't seem relevant to the article, does it, except for his particular animus for above-ground electric railways.Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be on rationed free time until 9 Nov.

Don't take any silences as accord. Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Debunked data.

Removed section of text:

"Much of the above was not made public at the time. For example, the attempted hostile takeover of The Key System in 1941 was only made public during a Public Utilities Commission hearing in 1955 because the companies request by the GM-controlled attorney was denied. In addition, both National City Lines and Pacific City Lines were incorporated in Delaware, a state which does not require companies to disclose information about directors or shareholders, and which also offers low corporation tax and other incentives to businesses that incorporate there."

Checking the primary and secondary sources "cited" reveals that the attempt to keep stock purchases out of the PUC hearing record occurred in 1950, not 1955, and involved the Key System's old guard, not the NCL incomers.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. What an entrance!!

Can I politely ask that if you find that a date given in a source is wrong in the article that you simply correct it and provide a better source next time, rather than delete the para entirely. If you believe that GM et al were being very open about what they were doing and that it was common knowledge at the time that they controlled NCL and PCL then could you provide evidence to that effect? Please don't simply hack the article where you disagree.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Might I politely ask that, if you can not find a reputable cite supporting a contention, you consider the possibility that the contention is..."the thing that is not," was how the Houyhnhnms put it. Demoro's work makes it plain that there was no secrecy about PCL's takeover bid; but there was a great deal over one of the defense mechanisms used against it. The Key system over-paid insiders, on the understanding that they would use the extra cash to buy up any stock floating loose; a sort of a hidden buy back, but one which enriched individuals rather than the company as a whole. Anmccaff (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please can you provide references for the above claims? In which page of which book does Demoro make it clear that PCL's attempt to take over Key System in 1941 was public knowledge? And if it is was public then why was the lawyer trying to keep it secret years later? Where is your source for your claim tht Key system over-paid insiders etc etc etc. I am not saying what you claim isn't true, I am just asking you to support the improvement of the article, and not simply criticise it. PeterEastern (talk)

Right where Modern transit (mis)quoted him, of course. See p 109-110 of "The Key Route." "The offer came from Pacific City Lines..." What the lawyer was trying to keep out of a particular public record -it was already out elsewhere - was that the insiders of Key system made a good deal of money themselves out of their effort to fend of PCL. "Teasdale (sic) said Key officials gave themselves hefty pay raises in 1939, 1940, and 1941 to raise enough money so they could buy more Railway Equipment & Realty stock, and fend off the Pacific City Lines acquisition effort." (Demoro, Key lines, p 110)Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, you might want to take a look at this article from 1940 and this one. The first details the expected replacement of Key's defunct competor with bus in 1940 (i.e., before any PCL/NCL involvement whatsoever,) and the second shows that removal of Berkeley's streetcars was planned, and agreed on, before the NCL takeover. Anmccaff (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified that it was the involvment of GM and the others in NCL and PCL that was not revieled, not the public activities of the companies themselves (with the exception of the failed hostile takeover of Key Systems). PeterEastern (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

But that isn't true, either, and material in the '55, '73 and '74 Senate hearings documentation makes that explicitly clear.Anmccaff (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Demoro contradicts this, mostly.

"The involvement of General Motors and others in these holding companies was not made public at the time,"

This is simply untrue, and references you have available show it. Standard and Firestone made an effort to screen their involvement from casual notice, but GM, or, rather, Yellow, did not.

"and the attempted hostile takeover of Key System in 1941 was only made public during a Public Utilities Commission hearing in 1955 when the companies request by the GM-controlled attorney was denied.[1]"

This is simply factually inaccurate, and the reference indirectly cited contradicts it completely. Or has that been removed, since it didn't support the "correct" thesis?

" In addition, both National City Lines and Pacific City Lines were incorporated in Delaware, a state which does not require companies to disclose information about directors or shareholders, and which also offers low corporation tax and other incentives to businesses that incorporate there.[2]"

Again, this is basically untrue. These were publicly traded, SEC listed companies; the only attempt (by Firestone) to screen involvement through nominees was picked up on by the SEC in 1941.

Anmccaff (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifics? You are making lots of claims here, but no specific references. I am requesting references for the claims you make below:

• "The involvement of General Motors and others in these holding companies was not made public at the time,". This is simply untrue, and references you have available show it. Standard and Firestone made an effort to screen their involvement from casual notice, but GM, or, rather, Yellow, did not.

Please provide evidence for each of the claims made and what exactly you mean by 'but GM, or, rather, Yellow, did not.' PeterEastern (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

By 1955 -remember, that's the date used in this paragraph- Martians and Venusians probably had copies of all the relevant papers, but the SEC certainly had NCL's copy from the PCL buyout in 1946. See The Industrial holding Act hearings p2239. Anmccaff (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• "and the attempted hostile takeover of Key System in 1941 was only made public during a Public Utilities Commission hearing in 1955 when the companies request by the GM-controlled attorney was denied.[1]" This is simply factually inaccurate, and the reference indirectly cited contradicts it completely. Or has that been removed, since it didn't support the "correct" thesis?

Please avoid the sarcasm. I am trying to draw out you information to improve the article and will then do so. In an ideal world you would make carefully considered changes to the article, supported by good references. An alternative would be to provide well referenced and considered requests for changes on this talk page. Making unsourced claims and following them with what I see as rather bitchy comments is the least good option in my view! Please provide details of the 'indirect references' that demonstrate that the current source is inaccurate (including page, link and quote ideally) and we can move forward. PeterEastern (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, Demoro was referenced by that conspiraloon page at Modern Transit, and he thoroughly refutes it. The year is wrong, the actors are wrong, the action is wrong. Mr. Szoboszlay let his enthusiasm for demonizing anything on more that two wheels run away with him. Lundgren and St Sure bought out the Key system because NCL et al was gunning for it, and that was common knowledge at the time. Here, from the San Bernardino Sun Jan 9, 1941 p.17

To quote "Control of Rail System: Acquired (By United Press) SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 8. Control of the Railway Equipment & Realty Co., formerly the Key System, which operates interurban train service between San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda and local service in the latter cities, has been acquired by a group ofOakland businessmen, headed by A. J. Lundberg, president, and William P. St. Sure, vice-president, it was announced tonight. St. Sure said control of the transit firm was acquired "to prevent its acquisition by outside interests." National City Lines, a Chicago corporation, had been reported interested in buying Railway Equipment & Realty for the last year. The Oakland group purchased a majority of the stock on the San Francisco stock exchange today. A block of 26,500 shares sold at $5 a share.''

-- Anmccaff (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• "In addition, both National City Lines and Pacific City Lines were incorporated in Delaware, a state which does not require companies to disclose information about directors or shareholders, and which also offers low corporation tax and other incentives to businesses that incorporate there.[2]" Again, this is basically untrue. These were publicly traded, SEC listed companies; the only attempt (by Firestone) to screen involvement through nominees was picked up on by the SEC in 1941. Anmccaff (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, loads of claims here which may well be true, but need good references before we will act on them. If you are saying that the ownership of NCL and PCL was public knowledge from the start then please provide the evidence. I guess you also have a reference to support your statement ' the only attempt (by Firestone) to screen involvement through nominees was picked up on by the SEC in 1941'? If you do then why not give it to us. Why make us ask time and time again for your sources? PeterEastern (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Larger publicly held corporations are required to report their subsidiaries, see for example an older listing of NCL's subsidiaries. For Firestone, nothing is surfacing free on the internet for me right now, but I suggest you Google "Proposed amendments to the Securities act of 1933 and to the Securities exchange act of 1934, Volume 4" and "Firestone" and see if a snippet view doesn't come up for you.

Damned if it didn't surface almost as soon as I gave up on it. Federal awareness of "supplier" involvement, long before Quinby. Anmccaff (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• (Who is this "we," BTW? And does it connect somehow to the haikuesque "Why make use (sic) ask time and time again?")Anmccaff (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

'We' are the other people who have edited this article and are interested in it and maintain it, many of whom have responded to you on talk since you arrived, and others who read this talk page but are not engaging. 'We' are the people who have reverted changes you have made to the article when you have not provided references for the changes. 'We' are the people who you are now expecting to respond to all your new information that you are indeed providing on talk (for which I thank you). As I have mentioned before, WP is a community, and you are have been encouraged a number of times to join that community and work directly on the article with care, balance and references. Yes it does connect with "Why make us ask time and time again?". I am certainly very tired of prompting you for sources. PeterEastern (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am equally tired of pointing out that you have an article that stands well out of balance with its own better sources, and you should consider the possibility that some people are hanging back, or have simply given up, because of that. As I see it, you have left dozens of requests to check -your- sources hanging; it doesn't work to just grab anything -Black, Modern Transit- off the internet because it fills a hole in the narrative. Btw, stop editing my content as such here. You've changed the meaning or the timing of what I wrote above, at least twice.Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to acknowledge that you have provided useful information and sources to support changes to the article, and ask if there are any other claims made in the article that you dispute, and if there is any other notable information that you think should be included and for which you can provide sources. I would ask you to list these and we can the update the article. What I have been reluctant to do is to try to edit the article against a moving target and a barrage of criticism. Does that make sense? With reference to your request that I don't edit your talk page comments I would draw your (and others) attention to the justification I gave on my talk page in response to your recent complaint on the subject there. If you are unhappy with my response I suggest you pick it up there. PeterEastern (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

To get the obvious unpleasantness out of the way, I think that moving a central disagreement about editing another's meaning and datestamp would be a disservice to a dispute resolution board, which seems to be the way this is headed. Next, look through the last 250 or so edits, and see if one name doesn't pop out for frequent closely spaced edits - the moving target is partly your own creation, and looks a bit like a displacement activity. As for actual editing:

• The lede takes as a given that there was a conspiracy beyond selling product, and that GM was the central author. It also mentions "electric trains:" the only such NCL was involved with, in Oakland, it ran and considered replacement of up until it was forced off the Bay Bridge.
• The first paragraph confuses NCL with affilates and spin-offs -eg. San Diego and stretched time boundaries similarly. The "Supplier group" was out of NCL by '49.
• the third paragraph claims that Quinby brought "widespread attention" to something that was already well known. The actual causes of trolley decline are listed secondarily, with many major causes ignored completely.
• The 4th para. implies that skepticism of the conspirophiles is a new thing; in fact, it was, and is, the norm among transit scholars. "Guy Span," while a useful source, is not a "noted writer on the subject," he is a writing persona for a small give-away paper. This isn't to say that the writer isn't informed and intelligent (he is, and has had an inside view of a lot of things rail), but that these are off-the-cuff writings, not scholarly ones. They provide an excellent overview, but depending on them for particular points of fact is dangerous.

I suspect that is enough for now. Any thoughts?19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Anmccaff (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I hear you. Are there any other issues you would like addressed, or if these were considered and responded to would you be done? What I want to do at this point is draw out all the very useful information you have on this subject so we can respond to it in the round. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's only a first off-the-top-of-my-head run through the first few paragraphs, and it ignores what I see as the central problem: this article conflates a semi-criminal undertaking, a portion of technological history, a part of history, and a folktale. I suspect that it should be at least 3 separate pieces. (Either way, though, addressing the points I raised above would need to be done, but it is just scratching the surface.)Anmccaff (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Why are you mentioning dispute boards? The link I gave was to my talk page where you raised your issue with my edits to your talk contributions which I suggested was the right place to continue that discussion if necessary. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Step back and look at it from my point of view. I see a lot of my editing removed out of hand, with a whiff of POV surrounding the removal. I see selection of very low-quality sources - LG, EB, BS, MT - all with a definite POV, and much stricter standards applied to anti-conspiracy cites. I see other editors voicing similar misgivings. I see an over-concern with stability and polished language, and a lesser one for accuracy. Part of this, of course, comes back to Wiki's central failing: unlike a real encyclopedia, it actively discourages personal expertise. If someone with a good Ouija board began channeling Hilton, Hilton would be told to get some secondary cites. That part is hardly your fault, or anyone else here's. Anmccaff (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• ps... you failed to sign your last post correctly, using only a date. I will leave you to correct it. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hah! Done. No, I don't see any problem with you, or a bot for that matter, making clearer who said what, but edits that change the meaning are a very different thing. You reacted strongly to a minor comment on a typo that had turned a sentence into a garden-path koan. I suspect you would not have done that if you hadn't "corrected" my quote.Anmccaff (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of 7K of content from talk, including my last contribution

Anmccaff, with this edit you appear to have removed 7K of content from talk, including my last contribution. Was this what you intendedl? If it wasn't then I suggest you revert the edit and try again! PeterEastern (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened, but it should be undone now.Anmccaff (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Time to disengage

I have reluctantly decided to stop trying to work to improve the article at this time and will focus on other articles and activities. I say reluctantly, because I enjoy working on articles with a wide range of people with different views, and learning with them how to work to improve articles together. I do have respect for your knowledge Anmccaff, but it is just to hard to work with you. Sorry, but it seems like going through treacle and getting beaten up every day!

I would encourage anyone making changes to the article to support them with strong clear references and if appropriate supporting explanations on talk. If sources are not easily available without a fee then I ask that the relevant content to be quoted in the citation. If the sources are large then please quote a page number.

I will maintain a watch on the article. I may refine content in the article from time to time if I think that would be helpful, but won't be adding new content myself and am unlikely to engage on talk. I will however revert changes that are not supported by references of a good standard.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How the trolley was seen.

"Over the past fifteen years or so, the city bus has clawed, butted, and fought its way through traffic-glutted streets, through spongier and more perilous politic-glutted operating franchises, until it is, today, a phenomenon of mass transportation You see city buses everywhere—masto-donic metal hulks gliding in and out of traffic with a soft hissing of air brakes, a rich sound of balloon tires on asphalt, a resonant hum of engines concealed within their structures. And the main reason this almost brand new vehicle became a phenomenon is because the faithful electric trolley had sunk into such a state of obsolescence as to be scarcely tolerable. During the fifteen years the bus was growing, the trolley, as an invention, virtually stood still. It just grew older and the street it was still suffered to haunt grew noisier with its clanking decrepitude. Half the trolleys now in use are twenty years old or older: the average age is around sixteen." ("Yellow Truck and Coach". Fortune Magazine, 14, no. 1, July 1936, pp63-65.)

"one acerbic commentator, startled to learn that anyone could be enthusiastic about trolleys, declared after this they would not be surprised to find that there was a League for the Defense of the Common Cold." (re Quinby and the ERA) The Saturday Evening Post vol 250 p.70.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone give a single example -additional example, that is- of transit scholars who felt this?

"With hindsight a number of more recent studies have questioned that the alleged conspirators had a significant impact on the decline of the streetcar system, rather, they were setting themselves up to take advantage of the decline as it occurred."

This reflects the attitude in the general press, and in some scholarly circles not closely connected to the subject, but I can count on my thumbs the number of transit scholars who believed that GM was a major factor. Yago and St Clair on the one side, and everybody else on the other, with Smerk alone in the middle.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Robert Post notes that the ultimate reach of GM's conspiracy extended to approximately 10% of US transit systems.[12] The conspiracy did, however, impact to some extent on all five of the largest current metropolitan areas in the USA."

To begin with, Post is one of the least conspiracy-minded of the transit scholars, and uses, correctly, the word "alleged" in the cited work. "Nationwide the reach of the alleged conspirators extended to only about 10 per cent of all transit systems - sixty-odd out of some 600 - and yet virtually all the other 90 percent also got rid of trolleys (as happened with all the tramcar systems in the British Isles and France.)"

The assertion that GM (et al) affected transit in X of the Y largest current SMSAs is classic OR, in the wikipedian sense. Find a (credible) cite for it; the fact that NCL was involved in large metropolitan areas could equally well be argued as the cause for their growth. ("freed of the albatross of steel rail in downtown streets...")

That aside, it is questionably accurate. The NYC metro area is an early adopter of bus -Manhattan, an mid-range adopter -Brooklyn, or an electric holdout -Newark. It also retained a goodly bit of street rail's -other competitor, subway and dedicated right-of-way electric trains...and no serious scholar sees the fight against streetcars in NYC being driven by GM; it started before GM was even founded. Going through the rest of the list, Chicago and SF are hardly electric-transit free, and choosing to cut off before Boston and Philly seems a bit fishy.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there of this, except in man-on-the-street level?

"Facts emerged slowly, hindering understanding of events that occurred during the transition from rail to automotive transportation." That is, we have a solid continuum of scholarship; it's only the folklore that changes. Any comment?Anmccaff (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC):Lemme amend that to "folklore and secondary scholarship". At some point, the mythology became a real part of peripherally involved scholarship.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of this "conspiracy" is bullshit, of course. Street railway patronage in the US peaked in the 1920s not because "GM killed the streetcar" but because people eager to be "free" were buying cars which not only drained riders but clogged the companies' routes. The steam roads were much the same way. Most companies limped into the Great Depression then limped into the Second World War when they were run into the ground by the huge crowds unable to drive because of wartime rationing. After the war, most of them were barely functional unless, like in Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco, they had significant rapid transit right of way (tunnels). Worn out equipment was the rule not the exception. Here comes a big corporation that offers to sell them buses and finance them. What else would a street railway manager do but scrap what was left and buy buses? I also note that GM sold roughly 10x the number of New Looks as there were ever PCC cars.

I love street railways and probably know more about them than most of the people that insist on this conspiracy, but come on. Get real. --plaws (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Thompson's The Passenger Train in the Motor Age: California's Rail and Bus Industries, 1910-1941? Makes the case that over-simplistic cost allocation hampered steam (and heavy electric) as well. (That's an aside, not disagreement; yeah, Wroger Wrabbit was wrong, and the literature strongly supports that, and the article should, too.) Anmccaff (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not but it sounds interesting. Given how often railways, of both the steam and street varieties, went bankrupt back before the Depression, got reconstituted, went bankrupt again, wash, rinse, repeat, it occurs to me that companies may not have known how to operate large organizations at the time. And of course, titanic changes in the transportation market weren't helping matters. If you want to blame a car company for the demise of street railways, it was Mr Ford and his assembly line that did it. --plaws (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cracks in the facade.

Outline of new section detailing other factors, especially as they apply to NY/LA.

Ideas?

Cracks in the Facade

Franchise cost increases.

Pavement changes asphalt/pennymac/tarmac, concrete

Auto traffic growth. Less rich passengers, Rural areas get autos (model t.) secondary properties less valuable (sometimes.).

Sunday driving and 2ndary revenue drop ("the dividends are in the straps"

Ist collapse of interurbans. Ist gen streetcars seen as obsolete

War, beginning of inflation.

Jitneys.

US entry into war, ramp up of of inflation. many lines are now unable to cover cost and maintenance.

Wage board increases interurban driver's salary, locks in steam locomotive wage structure. AAA. Teamsters block piggyback in chicago.

Macadoo and bus plan for LA. PE/NCL response.

"Ship by truck" movement.

Rail takeover & deferred maintenance.

Surplus truck technology and wartime development.

First major divestiture of steam-road owned electric rail. More subways.

Good roads (again.)

"anti-traction" movement.

Ford 8. Cheap cars now have more HP than some streetcars.

Attempt at management consolidation (Stone and Webster) blocked.

@nd gen streetcars facing obsolescence. Bus in New York able to get twice the fare of trolley.

Depression. Road work. Resistance to tracked. Trackless trolley 3rd generation.

PCC car. All-service car. (GM?/SCNJ poject.

Utilities holding act. Steam railroad divestiture of marginal trolleys. Bus technology as good as most existing streetcars.

WWII. artificially high ridership; still not enough.

-- (unsigned comment by Anmcaff)

Dispute

I have merged two sections 'Disgused' and 'Notification' into one, titled 'Dispute', to capture the discussion leading to the addition of a 'disputed' banner to the article and a request for mediation. PeterEastern (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in a while. I'm saddened by the loss of [[:|user:Peter Eastern]]'s contributions to monitoring this article. Without them, this has turned into a one sided POV laden article aimed at debunking what was the previous version of the article. I started trying to read through this, corrected a few things, primarily the assertion in the lede that San Francisco's historic system only survived because it was using underground tunnels downtown, when (with a few exceptions that are not downtown) it never has (obviously trying to tie the 1970's era BART system modifications to the exception to the conspiracy). Its a minor point maybe but pushes the credibility of all the contributions. Most are made with one dominating source, the Guy Span article. But the framing of this article has shifted tone from an encyclopedic article about the subject to an article written to deliberately sway opinion. Its almost a hopeless endeavor to unwrite the detailed tone. Phrases like "Conspiracy theorists empahsize" and "Cracks in the Facade" which I deleted before I saw there was discussion here. [[:|user:Anmccaff]] has done a lot of subtle work redirecting this tone unabated and obviously without appropriate discussion. I'm not going to suggest that Span does not have some relevant points to make, but to say everything he has written is correct, so everything that existed before was wrong, is as bad as not including it. And realize the companies that perpetrated this conspiracy are still multi-billion dollar corporations; major players who would like to erase their criminal history--this is a small part of that. It would not be below their dignity to launch a PR campaign to whitewash their history.

It makes me ask who is Guy Span? According to his Examiner article (not a WP:RS):

Guy has worked for a number of Fortune 500 rail transportation companies, serving in such varied capacities as track maintenance, locomotive repair, brakeman, conductor, engineer, yardmaster, trainmaster, superintendent, assistant vice-president and senior vice-president. He has served on the Board of Directors of both passenger and freight railways. He has been a commuter in the Bay Area since 1990 serving on the Board of Directors of a ferry support group and instrumental in filing a number of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) motions aimed at preserving ferry service at lower rates. As a consultant he has studied and sometimes worked for railways and transit operations all over the world, including North America, Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. He has a degree in Journalism from Boston University and has served as a writer, editorialist and Editor of San Francisco Bay Crossings.

As editor of the publication we are using as a source for the weight of the article, he sure looks like he was at the time in full control of what is written there, not subject to editorial review. They have a staff now, this is just an archived 2003 article on the site. Other than this article, google doesn't show much else from him. It does not support the assertion that he is a journalist. There is no writing background or history on any subject.

At this point I think we need to revert back to the beginning of Anmccaff's contributions and carefully inject Span's point of view back into the previous version, rather than to try to fix what exists now.

-- Trackinfo (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TrackInfo. I haven't gone, but did sign-off for a while to focus on other topics and give this issue a chance to either resolve itself or come to a head. I also wanted to stand back because I felt I had dominated the defence of the article in a way that was beginning to feel unhealthy. I had intended to keep a watch on the article itself and revert unsupported edits and POV, but in the end decided that that wouldn't work and that it was best for my sanity and WP to completely withdraw and not even glance at the changes being made.

If it is your view that the article has been turned into a ball of POV nonsense then I suggest that we refer the issue to some formal process to get an independent steer, with a recommendation that we revert and that Anmccaff to ask him to stay away from editing this, and related, articles for a period of months.

Trackinfo: I will very much take your lead on this. If you support the above and are happy to make your views heard during that process then I would certainly get back involved. If other people support of this proposal then that would be helpful.

In the mean time, I suggest that we put a disputed banner on the article to warn the many people who refer to this article every day that it may not be up to scratch. Would you like to do that?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think your suggestion for putting a disputed banner on the top of this is a good first step. I dislike the idea of banning anybody from input on an article, but Anmccaff certainly needs to find a way to interact with other people's opinion. He has obviously not done so, to the point that we have felt bullied and pushed aside. So the content of the current version is now largely the work of one editor's dominating point of view. The history is clear. I don't really want a battlefield here, I've seen enough battles elsewhere. The guy already reverted my edits earlier, he is paying attention to this article. It and associated articles dominate his contributions to wikipedia. So lets ask him, how does he propose to make his contributions collegial on a long term basis? If he can't produce a suitable answer, then we should seek further disciplinary action. It would be nice if someone else would step in and help this article, we haven't really found any takers and I'm not sure how to recruit anybody. Trackinfo (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• I will note, as much as I have railed against tags, it pains me to have to put one on an article. Trackinfo (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was about to respond to TI's, first posting above, but I think if it has gotten to this point, it is better to go directly to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution requests, and have. Anmccaff (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you for placing the banner TrackInfo. I have had a look through the recent edits by Anmccaff and suggest that we could rebalance the article based on where it has got to, but not in a way that he would agree to. Let's consider this over the weekend and then make a decision. Hopefully we will get input from others in that time as well. I note Anmccaff recent response above. PeterEastern (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any sort of template or suchlike for extracting participants in an article? The GM/NCL business here is headed toward dispute resolution, obviously, and I'd like to get everyone notified without having to plow through all the archives to do so. (I've plowed through all the archives, of course, but for different reasons.)

I'd also like to figure out what the best dispute resolution method for questions of fact would be. Going straight to the most rigorous might actually make sense here.Anmccaff (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the parties to the dispute are the three of us, although we could leave a message for Springe, who was active on the article for a month in Oct14 after a gap for 2 years and disagreed with some of the content. Personally I will would him in peace. Anyone else who is watching and lurking is also welcome to contribute. Needless to say, no party should selectively canvas for engagement in the process. Given that it is TrackInfo and I who are bringing the dispute, I suggest you leave us to make the posting and outline our grievance. You will then have your opportunity to respond and we can see if with external input we can get to something that works well. PeterEastern (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree on a couple of these points. I see this as concerning everyone who edited something approximating the current page; that's Peter Eastern Trackinfo Springee Stepho-wrs Dogru144 groupuscule Philip_J._Rayment RomeW GreatWikiness cecropia Blogjack WillBeback Stidmatt Hoopsworldscout Bonewah DanTD Kamnet UrbanNerd Willmcw Sluggoster Sylvain1972 LordKinbote pfahlstrom kiko James_D._Rockefeller Eloil Screamingman14 Umbrete DropDeadGorgias "John Rydberg' -not an account name" Wlindley Twang DavuMaya Twerges Skymoore AusJeb LeContexte tedder Synchronism Kikodawgzzz Zahzuhzaz Vontrotta RussNelson scs (under previous name) 155.104.37.17 (IP, and shared, but a lot of input. IP is a former trolley-maker.) 155.104.37.17 (ditto)Cmck1980 (gone, I think.)74.179.43.117 Goethean 98.87.122.35 GeorgeLouis Masonmilan Shearonink Poroubalous kev AwesomeSky TheGGoose Koavf, and of course, myself. For starters. That's everybody on the talk pages, although there are at least a couple IPs that probably represent

Then there's the editors who didn't talk: "editors" not mentioned: DavidLevinson 98.114.173.24 DonFB Hljmesa Stepho-wrs 65.26.144.90(real, but one-off)69.122.47.28 (ditto) 206.47.249.246 (stable and current; also posts under other IPs.) Kendall-K1 Dr_EMD Lost_on_belmont (Back to Apr2014, as much as I can stand for now.)

I suspect that simply bracketing them and posting them again here to talk will let them know that someone is taking their names in vain.

More importantly, I already have brought up the dispute, possibly, looking for info on how to best handle it. The ball may already be rolling.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

PS, you, or rather Trackinfo, has posted the article as disputed without any remaining actual disputes outstanding. He noted that a a sentence was misleading, which was fixed almost immediately,and demanded a cite, which was provided. He also posted some truly amazing stuff about The Artist Who Writes as Span, but that's nothing to do with me. I believe you (plural) are doing this a bit out of order. Anmccaff (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. How about this approach then. You stand back for a few days and I will adjust the article to rebalance it to my satisfaction noting my reasons for each change, either in the edit history or on talk as appropriate. I will let you know when I am done and you can then consider if you are happy with the changes and if not do the same while I will stand back. At the end if this we will see if the three of us are all happy, and if we are happy then we can stand down from the dispute process, if we are not then we may decide to repeat the process or head over to the dispute process. Are you up for that? PeterEastern (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dunno. Why not simply state particular objections here on the talk page, one by one, give a reasonable amount of time for response, and then proceed with that change, or not, as appropriate? You know, about the way I did here in the last month, and as you suggested Springee do?

Also, "rebalance?" That rather implies a correct outcome is desired, rather than a quest for facts. Over the last several months, I think you've seen a good many of your base assumptions about the subject refuted; perhaps it isn't the article that requires rebalancing.

An aside: I've reverted your deletion. While that talk page clearly was meant as a project page development talk page, not a general one, the page itself explicitly says to use it if there are questions about the best dispute resolution method to use. Hopefully the edits will attract someone's attention; if they don't in a day or two, I'll forward it to a few of the people who developed the page.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not offering to get into long debates with you on content on talk again. We differ on what is fact and what is POV so I suggested this because I thought it would be an efficient way to boil down the issues on which we disagree a bit. It seems you are not up for that and also we don't even agree on the correct way to register a dispute (as per "An aside: I've reverted your deletion") ;) PeterEastern (talk)

• I started from the top, trying to take out POV oriented content. I get to the fifth paragraph and we have Guy Span "noted writer." I am unable to establish notability with any reliable sources. His following quote, the only quote, dominates the lede and further sways the direction and sourcing on the article. Anmccaff you put this guy in here, you better establish who he is. I did not use the phrase "The Artist Who Writes as Span" but if this is how you know of him, he sure sounds more like a flake than a scientific researcher. (this para was written by TrackInfo at 03:26, 27 January 2015, but was split from the rest of his contrribution by a subsequent edit by Anmccaff)

My, my. It hasn't occurred to you that all the signs point toward a pseudonym? His qualifications are listed generally, and his name is, among other things, electric power wire terminology. You read an article penned by someone whose name is roughly equivalent to "Tye Wire" or "'Loco' Motif" or "Cross Tice," and then you look for him in real life. Under that name. My, my, my.Anmccaff (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• If I were like some jerks on wikipedia, I'd just strike any reference to this unknown source. (this line was written by TrackInfo at 03:26, 27 January 2015, but split from the rest of the paragraph by a subsequent edit by Anmccaff)

The San Francisco Examiner is hardly an unknown source, and they also published him under that penname.Anmccaff (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been through this elsewhere. Examiner.com is not the San Francisco Examiner. It is a notorious commercial self-publishing blog site. It has been blacklisted as a reference from wikipedia. That is not my decision, I had nothing to do with this. But placing the credibility based on that site is improper. Trackinfo (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe his stuff goes back to 2004; i.e., before the Anschutz buyout, but I might be conflating it with some "Bay Crossings" stuff.Anmccaff (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I hate that when it is used against content I have written, particularly when an article is in dispute. So I'm being extraordinarily friendly here. Do what I have had to do in some cases, establish the credibility of your source. Since you used the word "noted," prove notability. Show us his expertise on the subject. Show his publication in editorial controlled media rather than a single online publication he used to edit. If you can't then lets pull Span out of the article and every conclusion based on his writing should be stricken. Peter, how long do you suggest we wait? Trackinfo (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Until you notify whoever quoted the source, which was certainly not me. As I've explicitly said, "Guy Span" is a writing persona, and some of his work is off-the-cuff. Anmccaff (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am sensing there is no support from Anmccaff to retain Guy Span content, so we should be removing things referenced to it. Trackinfo (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's a fairly decent summation of the situation, and a far more reliable source than something like Louis Guibault, or Akos Szoboszlay, or Brad Snell, or....well the list goes on, doesn't it? My quibbles with Him Who Writes As Span are minor. That said, the reason why he -and Louis G and Brad S (and Uncle Tom Wetzel and all, and all) are listed here is easy accessibility, not scholarly weight. Actually, you take into account the occasional Marxist and marxian excesses, Wetzel is often a decent scholar.Anmccaff (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• And now that you have reverted my first two attempts to clean up the article, Anmccaff you are not showing any inclination to being open and reasonable. Trackinfo (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And I've stated explicitly why on both occasions, but I suppose you know better than addressing that.Anmccaff (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My editing is consistent with my objection. Your writing style, embedded throughout the article from the top, is designed to draw conclusions and sway opinion. The Wikipedia voice writes from a neutral point of view. If conclusions can be derived, build your case but don't start with a premise then fill in the proscribed storyline. Your word choices forcing the conclusions into the lede force a POV into the article. That is the problem to be solved here. Trackinfo (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, No. As I see it, you are the one with an agenda here. Why don't we make a new section, put the current lead paragraph(s) in it, and mark up the percieved problems?Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)