Talk:Chevrolet Vega

Is this really right ?

"each employing a 140 cu in (2,300 cc) inline-4 engine with an aluminum-alloy cylinder block and a single overhead cam, cast-iron cylinder head. "

I am not the worlds biggest expert by any means, but I know of dozens of 70's cars with cast iron blocks and alloy cylinder heads, and never heard of one which was the other way around. Could this have been vandalised and nobody noticed ? Eregli bob (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's really right. The engine section of the article explains why...strength and lower cost are the reasons for the iron head. The aluminum block was used to showcase the liner-less, silicon cylinder bore technology pioneered by GM engineers started in the 50s. Vegavairbob (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Too long

Does anyone else think this article is way too long? This is a car that was only sold for 7 years, yet the article is much longer than the Ford F-Series article. It needs to be shortened a lot, especially the Reception section. Many of the photos are also unnecessary (in my opinion) and should be eliminated. —Reelcheeper (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is divided and subdivided into readable sections. Reader has the option from the contents to select what they'd like to read (or skip). The article is recieving twice as many hits per day now than when it was "too short", and it is not on the largest articles list. As for Ford pickup article, a paragraph per generation should be minimum for a vehicle with 12 generations, and each generation (usually) has seperate articles, with the main article a general overview.

6k bytes have been trimmed from Reception, Design, Lordstown Assembly, Stillborn engines and DeLorean factor sections. Five images were also removed. Images are evenly spaced, depict text and do not crowd article sections.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reelcheeper, the article's length is the beginning of its problems. Additionally, the tone, the mis-emphasis on trivia, the diarrhoeic citation of information without the transparent inclusion of direct quotes within the reference citations, the abuse of the passive voice and the general self-enthralled wordiness — all contribute to the article having become a self-celebratory "fan page" rather than a reference article. The notion that the article's 'width and girth' are the factor contributing to the traffic here is not only hugely self-congratulatory — it is a conflation that overlooks other very real factors that can increase traffic, e.g., the simple possibility the article is now more well-linked to other articles, Wikipedia itself is getting more hits, etc. Essentially, the article has been kidnapped by one editor — and this has been pointed out repeatedly. The unvarnished facts would do a far more effective job of serving the Vega; leave it to the astute reader to see through the mawkish grandstanding. 842U (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are 135 seperate references in this article. Every statement is from a reliable referenced source. Any concern as to its neutality (seperate critisism section), and other issues have been properly addressed over a year ago. Most retrospect writers haven't had access to, or chose not to include much of this information (ie. seven years of development and improvements) which dosen't support biased and opioninated conclusions. Vegavairbob (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article no longer conforms to anything close to Wikipedia standards; nor has it been created in the spirit of cooperation that is a prerequisite of Wikipedia. It is an exercise in puffery, one the astute reader can easily discern. 842U (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC

I added a gallery for the deleted images and provided award info to balance the article's neutrality with the criticism section since the entire Reception section was deleted. I reduced the article from 86 bytes (27 December 2010 842U5) to 77 bytes (29 January 2011 Vegavairbob) trimming the Design section, Engine sections including Rotory, DeLorean and Criticism sections and replaced the large production/changes chart with a smaller chart. Cosworth section and infobox Deleted (new page). Some noteworthy text added back to Aluminum block and Lordstown Assembly. Total size reduction from 128k bytes to 77k bytes.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious issues remain; the article can be improved dramatically: the article remains rufty in its attention to anecdotal detail; the article avoids an encyclopedic tone in favor of a chatty, poorly sourced fancruft; the article reflects the viewpoint of one editor – despite that editor having been warned repeatedly of the nature of the problem. These are significant departures from Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

The article has numerous issues, including fancruft, inclusion of trivia, length issues, contains speculations, original research and uses synthesis. Do not remove these tags until the article has been wikified. 842U (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed every issue on this discussion page long before your ridiculous claims and minor contributions. Your're a year late with nothing constructive to do. Stop flagging the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.75.14 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the article, and please sign your comments. The article has serious issues as it stands. It may be best to bring in more editors and see what can be done to bring the article into conformance with Wikipedia guidelines. In the meantime, the flags on the article will remain, to advice readers of the problems. 842U (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion of the issues, both pro and con, about the article in its current state can be seen here, at Wikiprojects Automobiles, (Chevrolet Vega discussion) which helps to frame automotive article within Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, Further discussion of the issues about the article in its current state can be seen here, at Wikiprojects Automobiles, (Chevrolet Vega discussion) which helps to frame automotive article within Wikipedia guidelines. 842U (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing: the larger story of the Vega

The article goes far to highlight trivial information about the Vega — e.g., giving the application of the Vega's fake wood siding and paint chemistry their own sections. It should to go to greater length to include the copious critical and easily available information on more serious and relevant aspects of the car — information about its poor reliability, poor construction, poor engineering, poor safety record, and how the totality of its problems as a product impacted not only its success, but the success and failure of its manufacturer and its impact on the US car industry. What small amount of this information the article does include in this vein is largely buried or obfuscated.

• 1990 Time Magazine noted "The bad reputation spread in 1970 with the Chevrolet Vega, a poorly engineered car notorious for rust and breakdowns."
• 1971 Time Magazine noted: "Films of those tests were shown at a Washington press conference last week by Institute President William Haddon Jr., former director of the National Highway Safety program. They might badly shake many buyers of small new cars, which now account for one-third of sales. In some crashes, the small car was smashed into a pile of twisted junk barely recognizable as an auto, while the bigger car sustained relatively moderate damage. In the Chevrolet crash, a dummy placed in the Impala only struck its head against the dashboard, but the dummy in the Vega was beheaded by a section of the hood that was hurled back through the windshield."
• 1993 In his book In the Rings of Saturn, Joe Sherman said that "by it's third recall, ninety five percent of all Vegas manufactured before May 1972 had critical safety flaws." adding that "reviews of the car noted its tendency to skid violently in sudden stops." The author said the Vega's "checkered history only reinforced the belief that GM made inferior small cars. This legacy would prove far more important than any direct impact the Vega would have on GM's profits."
• 1974 In her book, Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age, noted historian Emma Rothschild said the Vega was "an extreme case in the capacity for inspiring and then dashing consumer expectations."
• 2000 The Vega placed second in the Car Talk Worst car of the Millennium poll.
• 2003 In their book Unusually Stupid Americans, authors Ross and Kathryn Petras said the Vega "didn't go all that fast, consumed a lot of oil, the aluminum engine warped and the car tended to fall apart in accidents, if it didn't collapse from metal fatigue."
• 2005 The Vega was voted the least-loved American car in a 2005 MSNBC readers poll.
• 2007 Paul Niedermeyer at The Truth About Cars said in his article Chevy Volt: Vega Redux?, "The prolonged wait for the Chevrolet Volt reminds me uncomfortably of waiting for the Chevrolet Vega to appear. For GM’s sake, the outcome had better be radically different. Because no one single vehicle did more damage to GM then the highly-hyped Vega." Adding: "The Vega became a cause of national interest: if Americans could beat the Russians to the moon, GM could damn well beat back the imports" and "the standard three-speed stick was just as much a throwback to the fifties."
• 2008 Popular Mechanics, in the article 10 Cars that Damaged General Motors said "the Vega was actually a sales success. But ultimately that meant there were just that many more people disappointed by the Vega. By the mid-1980s, Vegas were being junked so aggressively that some salvage yards in Southern California had signs up saying they wouldn't accept any more. When even the junkyard won't take a car, that's trouble." They also said: "Throw in haphazard build quality and sheetmetal that you could practically hear rusting away, and the Vega truly rates as one of GM's great debacles."
• 2008 Rick Newman, writing for U.S. News's article The Chevy Vega: the Worst Detroit Car Ever? said "It sold well. Then the body started to rust. The aluminum engine started to warp. There were engine fires and mounting recalls. Horrified buyers fled, and General Motors killed the car by the late 1970s."
• 2008 Newman, also writing for U.S. News in the article Why America Is Shunning GM said of the Pinto and Vega, "those cars and numerous follow-ons now wear badges of horror identifying them as some of the worst cars in history—with millions of owners to bear witness" and "the Vega came with a cheap aluminum engine that couldn't withstand its own heat and often warped or melted before the car reached 50,000 miles." and "In short, bottom-rung benchmarks were set. Millions of customers—many from families with a long history of loyalty to Ford or Chevrolet or Chrysler—swore off domestics forever."
• 2009 In their column The 10 Most Embarrassing Award Winners in Automotive History, editors at CarandDriver.com said "It’s been 38 years since the Vega appeared, and the stink still won’t wash off."
• 2010 In the article The Chevrolet Vega--What Went Wrong? on Carlustblog.com, says after describing the Vega's engine problems: "And the fun didn't stop there. The engine's vibrations also caused the screws holding the Rochester carburetor together to work loose. When they got loose enough, the carb would start coming apart and raw gasoline would flow into the cylinders. Some of that gas ended up pooling in the muffler, where the heat would ignite it, causing backfires and worse. Sometimes the gas would leak in the other direction, dripping down over the outside of the hot engine block and causing a fire." Adding: "The worst part for GM was that, as bad as it was, the Vega fiasco wasn't life-threatening. Sure, there were millions of dollars in losses from the turmoil at Lordstown and the warranty claims and recalls, but GM could afford it. In 1977, as the last Vega rolled off the line to end this shameful chapter in automotive history, GM was still one of the most powerful industrial corporations on the planet, and it still had around 45% of the U.S. vehicle market. It was easy to just attribute it all to bad luck and ignore the underlying problems."
• 2010 In his book Generation Busted, author Alan Zemek said "Chevrolet's answer to the Japanese car, left it with a black eye."
• 2010 Editors at Popular Mechanics magazine called it "the car that nearly destroyed GM."
• 2010 Newsweek magazine called the Vega "famously crappy."

(this section was previously titled: the Truth About the Chevy Vega)

The REAL truth (summary)

Truth actually doesn't take long, but it has to be accurate. This is the final entry in Reception - Criticism (auto press) Oh and click on Achilles heel for the definition. It pretty much sums things up. Read the Problem areas, then the Reception section. then you'll have the story The last part of reception criticism (internet) is nothing more than biased opinion.

Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary issue, published September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped. The Vega became a falling star after the '77 model year." Barnstarbob (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article dedicates a poorly sourced section to the car's simulated woodgrain siding... but obfuscates much more relevant, well-sourced information about the car's critical flaws. 842U (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You even change the titles of your discussions.Barnstarbob (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You just don't give up do you. The wood siding is a subsection in the production speed section (with the paint subsection) showing the two problems at that production speed. I guess you can't figure that out; and it WILL stay as per discussion (Oh you didn't participate).

References

Very impressive I've got over 100 in the article. Most of those are from people who TEST cars- Motor Trend, Car and Driver, Road and Track, etc. (and I don't mean the .com variety) But of course we want people's opinions. We just can't write our own, so keep YOUR opinions out of the article. Regards Barnstarbob (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead is a general overview of the article. It lists the car's history from intro to its current status. It is not misleading, simply an overview which is what a lead is supposed to be. It states general praise AND the car's main flaw that lead to its cancellation and current status. It closes stating the car was cancelled, reputations were damaged and the car is denounced. The lead will not be a laundry list of all the criticism the car has had. Criticisms are not all facts. That's why we don't frame the criticism and draw conclusions. The lead will only spell out the facts. awarded car of the year, best seller, flawed engine, sales dropped, car cancelled, reputations damaged, car denonced. These are the FACTS in order that are in the lead. The Criticism and Problem Areas are in two huge sections. The Corvette is 50 years old and the article lead is smaller that the Vega which lived to be 7.(Barnstarbob (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Framing Criticism ruins neutrality of article

The Vega's "legacy" is not based on Time magazines assessment, Sorry... nice try. Just because Time in 1990 stated the Vega crash results as unfavorable doesn't mean the criticism can be framed to say the Vega has safety flaws. Time's article quote and URL is listed in Criticisms, moved from lead. STOP FRAMING THE CRITICISM.

These more current examples (in Reception-one in praise and one in Criticism) from a main auto source MOTOR TREND-none of these general statements list poor engineering or safety flaws.

Motor Trend in its 50th Anniversary issue, published September 1999 said, "The Vega seemed well placed to set the standard for subcompacts in the 70s, but it was troubled by one of the most vulnerable Achilles heels in modern automotive history; an alloy four-cylinder engine block that self destructed all too easily, and all too often. Once the word got out the damage was done, even though the engine had been revamped. The Vega became a falling star after the '77 model year.

Motor Trend Classic magazine in the Fall 2010 issue featured a 1973 Vega GT in a retrospective comparison test. Frank Markus, Technical Director of Motor Trend said, "Surviving Vegas are like a fossil record of everything that was wrong with the American auto industry circa 1970, but well-maintained examples are also great looking, nice-driving, economical classics—like Baltic Ave. with a Hotel, the best ones can be had for $10K or less."

See anything about poor engineering here or the car was poorly designed or the car has safety flaws or is unsafe? I think Motor Trend would have stated it in these recent summations on the Vega. STOP FRAMING THE CRITICISM like the internet does.

842U You reminded me not to frame the praise or criticism so you go ahead and frame everything you added to the article. Nothing was deleted that you added to the article but the framing of the criticism was removed. It's now listed without your opinions or conclusions. Your framing of the material to voice your opinions and AGENDA (he who accuses is usually guilty) will not stand, and the article will remain neutral. Barnstarbob (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article problems

My sense is this article is dominated by one contributor who is very enthusiastic about the Vega car. There are pluses and minuses regarding this enthusiasm. A big plus is that there is a terrific level of detail about this subject so that people seeking to learn about it will have much information at their disposal; this is freely given; Wikipedia benefits by these contributions. But there are minuses too: other contributors are blocked from giving their contributions (for example, I added four references from respected publications; two were deleted soon thereafter; I expect the remaining two to be deleted in the next few weeks); there is only one viewpoint (somewhat positively tilted towards the car which has been widely seen as one of the worst American cars ever built). What's happened as a result is that while there are many references, most are uncheckable since they lack inline citations; this prevents other Wikipedians from quickly verifying the information content in this article. So it is hard to ensure the article's authenticity and accuracy. The biggest minus is that the sole contributor hurts himself or herself, since he or she doesn't get to benefit from the wisdom of others here at Wikipedia. What I've found, over time, is that the HUGE benefit of Wikipedia is having other sharp, responsible contributors offering their views -- pluses as well as minuses -- that is, I can learn from others. And that's the huge minus here -- that the sole contributor doesn't get to learn from us. End of sermon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I'd like you to review the warnings you've been given in the past for WP:OWN, to re-consider what this is about, and to take a look at what you can do to create an environment where the process of editing on the article is shared and cooperative. I'd also like you to review WP:COI. As it stands, the contributions from other editors have been reduced to individual words here and there -- you may be owning the article again and letting your bias about the car control the article. The article prioritizes trivial matter (giving sections to Wood Siding and Paint Chemistry) while splintering, minimizing and scattering information on serious, substantive matters: recalls, safety problems, poor construction quality, rust, the car's poor legacy. The article is crafted around photos that are from promotional material, advertisements and your own car collection. And while article is interesting and you bring a great deal of enthusiasm to the article, it may be that, as with many COI/OWN issues, you may want to take a break from editing this article. 842U (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have experienced my contributions however small on some articles, deleted...so I know the feeling so I'm not a fan of deleting other Users contributions. As far as the Vega article, few text contributions by other editors have been made to this article in the last two years (probably because the only info available to users on the car is criticism). However many users over the last two years have offered suggestions and there opinions on neutrality, size etc, that I have followed including several new articles with material I had added to this article. It's all in the (now archived) discussions. I will not be accused of any wrong doing here and have contributed much to many articles. See my User page. I know the rules and follow them. All my referenced material for auto articles is presented in a neutral tone with no opinions expressed. This week, book and internet criticism (and a couple of auto press criticisms - also taken off the internet) were added by 842U. I have not deleted any of it, but it should and will be presented in a neutral way with no opinions, agendas or conclusions, as suggested by Wikipedia. And the lead should not have to be changed on a weekly basis, changing the wording around over and over, then back again. The lead is to summarize the article, not to be used as a forum for 842U's opinions or conclusions... I don't think so. Not on Wikipedia anyway. The main objective should be to present the material, however large or small in a neutral, readable way. As far as autos go I find auto publications present vehicles without biased opinion. Internet articles however should be used carefully as they can be unsourced and biased. Specifically, if an editor of Time magazine says in 1990 "The Vega was a poorly engineered car." (an opinion) it could and should be listed as a quote in criticism section. However it should not be used like this - The Vega was a poorly engineered car. (with the Time link). - this is 842 edit...in the lead of the article. This edit takes an opinion, stating it as fact. He did this with several statements in the lead. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, doesn't state opinions as facts, (but they do list opinions) Motor Trend's' opinion in 1971 that the Vega had good engineering I listed two years ago, but not as - The Vega was a well engineered car. - It's listed in Awards section as a quote: "The Vega is our choice for Car of the Year for its engineering excellence, styling..." Now as before, The lead does not say the car was well engineered or poorly engineered, but.. the engineering features are found in Engineering section, the engineering comments of Time are in Criticism and Motor Trend's quote in Awards. There should not be a statement drawn by the Wikipedia User stating his agreement with, or to promote a conclusion from either quote and that's what 842U did, rendering the article not neutral. (Barnstarbob (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Yes, we all know what's it's like to have our edits undone. You make several good points. And you bring a great deal of enthusiasm and knowledge to this subject. You have also been cited and warned many times for Ownership of this article. You may also have a Conflict of Interest: you edit this article hundreds of times every week, have declared yourself both on and off this site to have written the article, you are a self-declared fan of the vehicle, have structured the article around photographs you have taken, around photographs of your collection of cars and around advertisements and promotional material from the manufacturer – and you introduce a plethora of sources that lack transparency (e.g. sources that don't include the full quotations from which you draw conclusions). The article grows lengthy, but up until a week ago, the article didn't consolidate the car's egregious and serious negative reputation — in the introduction or in any other section of the article. Now you insist on shaping all of that information. Time magazine isn't enough, the books that encapsulate the Vega's legacy aren't enough, etc. And as it stands, the article hasn't begun to cover the Vega's continued serious negative impact on the introductions of the Cobalt, the Cruze and the Volt — widely covered in the automotive press. You are putting yourself in the position of the sole arbiter of what belongs and doesn't belong in the article – about a subject that you are very close to. These pitfalls have been brought up with you before. Please re-consider that other editors can assist in bringing greater credibility to the article by tempering your enthusiasm and closeness to the subject. 842U (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea right, the only edits I've had time for lately is correcting yours. Maybe its time for you to get a warning You have made the article non-neutral with your opinions and biased labels. Stop framing the criticism you have added. And nothing you added was deleted except your opinions and labels. The article will remain neutral as per Wikipedia standards. And stop accusing me of ownership. In the discussion you started but didn't participate in it has become clear there are no ownership problems on my part. I know what the Wikipedia standards are. Maybe it is you that has a problem in addition to the one mentioned in your User page... You seem to have difficulty with Wikipedia policy and standards. I've tried to explain but it's just useless, so at this point.. stop wasting my time. Barnstarbob (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I'm siding with 842U. Regarding neutrality and sources, it's not our job to second-guess Time Magazine editors. If a Time editor says the Vega was poorly engineered, that's what we put in. There are few inline citations here; when I added four solid ones, two were deleted. So, what's going on? Please remember Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. As I said before, a huge benefit is getting the views of others (including 842Us views, my views, Time Magazine, and others). Being open-minded is tough; I urge you, Barnstarbob, to try to be more open-minded here. None of us know everything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, you're missing the point. Motor Trend awards the car for its "engineering excellance" in 1971, and a Time editor says "poorly engineered car" in 1990, but the time quote was used to label the car... NOT NEUTRAL. both qoutes are listed, but neither will used to label the car. ie. poorly engineered or well engineered. 842U labeled the car poorly engineered from one non-automotive sourced quote on its engineering. I have many quotes from automobile press sources on the car's engineering besides MT. like to view some? I'll get back to you... It can fill this discussion page. I might have made an errror on deleted your link. I will return it to the article. I do not delete other contributions, but if it isn't presented in a neutral way it will be tweaked to remove labeling, framing or opinion. (Labeling, opinion and framing praise or criticism renders the article non-neutral). I'm siding with Wikipedia article guidlines for neutrality.(Barnstarbob (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

I owned a Vega. It burned oil. Had to add a quart every couple of hours. No kidding. Time Magazine in 1990 most likely read the Motor Trend 1971 evaluation; at that point, the engine's problems hadn't begun to appear. At any rate, I can't understand you removing or ignoring or burying a reference to Time Magazine when they had people on staff specifically to check facts. (I know somebody who had one of these jobs). If Time said "poorly engineered", trust them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So have I. Both quotes are in the article. Time and Motor Trend's opinions are in Praise and Criticism but neither is used to voice an opinion of an editor from Wikipedia. Regards.(Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, If you'd like to report me for something, please do. I'm here to contribute and to learn. What isn't working about the Vega article is that there is little room for anyone else to contribute — and you are beholden to the article's subject. You actively discourage others from participating ("stop wasting my time," or just "STOP"). And despite your dedication to the subject of the article — thousands of edits over a period of years — you have overlooked some rather prominent, easy to find information (e.g., the bullited list of sources that appear earlier on this page) that elaborates on the Vega's extreme problems. These sources you want to question... while the article expansively includes advertisements for the car and sections of trivial information based on thin sources (e.g., the fake wood siding, paint chemistry sections). I'd like to courtiously suggest again that you take a break and re-consider what I and others have suggested, you may be owning the article, and you may have a conflict of interest — after your behavior in these areas has been brought to your attention numerious times previously.842U (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You take a break because I'm tired of correcting your errors. I could be doing something more useful. I'm watching your contributions because you obviously aren't familar with Wikipedia's article guidelines and policy on neurality. and STOP framing the criticism you added.(Barnstarbob (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I accept in good faith what you say about being interested in, even a defender of neutrality. But for several years the article has ballooned to include minute specs of information that are tantalizingly interesting but go nowhere to address the Vega's larger cultural impact. After years of meticulous grooming the article highlighted fake wood siding (with egregiously thin and anecdotal sourcing) while overlooking important credentialed sources that told how the car's wide range of flaws impacted its own success, the success of it's manufacturer and the success of the US auto manufacturing. The Vega is important culturally — but for a lot more than the minutae of its manufacturing and marketing specification. Neutrality has several levels of meaning, and a definitive article on the Vega can't be balanced and overlook the larger story of the car. 842U (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Go write a book then because the "story" on Wikipedia is to be presented in a factual and neutral way. And you haven't figured out how to do that. So write that book then we'll list it under Criticism.(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Discussion

Barnstarbob/Vegabob I notice that you keep reverting the introduction. Please let's keep the discussing the article, it's introduction and how best to proceed. Let's be positive, open, and discuss things here.842U (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, I like where you are headed with the introduction; can it (and the article, e.g., with a section) talk cohesively about how the car's array of problems created another set of problems: for the company, confidence in the US car industry and ramifications for the US industry. These apparently is a seminal part of the car's legacy. 842U (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob/Vegabob, this isn't exactly a discussion. Nonetheless, I'll watch and see if you can incorporate the ideas from the other sources. I'm not sure why you're not including the broad array of problems and just focusing on the engine. The recalls were a huge factor in the Vega's reputation, and those were engineering/construction/safety problems. And the rust seems extremely important too. The engine was only one of a series of problems. 842U (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

842A You have added internet and book negative reviews (of which non was deleted), but I have added back the praise previously deleted making the article neutral (again). In addition I have added much Criticsm by auto press to balance the criticism since non of yours actually reviews the car, and is mostly retrospective. The only problem with the article is your persistance in rendering the lead paragraph non-neutral. STOP FRAMING CRITICISM WITH YOUR OPINION. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

COI Tag

The article has been largely written by someone very close to the subject of the article. The tag is completely appropriate, and until the issue is resolved here or on the COI notice board page, the tag is important; it lets the reader know that the article may have a pro-Vega bias.842U (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree 100%-the article has been cited as neutral for more than two years in previous discussions. Currently non-neutral framing of criticism by 842U has been applied to the lead of the article (who has tagged the article non-neutral). His edit of the lead renders the article non-neutral. The tag goes now. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Tag stays. More tags need to be added -- neutrality, reliable sources. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have participated in several discussions and have not been accused of non-neutral contributions nor has the aricle been cited as non-neutral for two years, nor has ANY Criticsm added by 842A in Criticism section been deleted, but the tag goes. The article is being tagged by the User rendering the article non-neutral due to opinions and framed criticsm in the lead paragraph. And my closeness to the subject doesn't mean I can't follow Wikipedia's policy of neutrailty. No matter how much negative criticism is added, it will not be framed with 842A's opinions. (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Other people (translation: me, 842U, others) have a say here about this subject. No one person can own and dominate an article. IF you wish to have full control over a subject, consider writing a Google knol on the Vega. That way, you can avoid having to consider the opinions of others. If you wish to write in Wikipedia, you must learn to consider the views of others, to be polite, to assume good faith, and try to be open-minded. It is my opinion that the article has numerous issues: neutrality problems, overemphasis of unimportant details, and issues regarding references (most are uncheckable -- few inline citations.) I added four inline citations from respectable publications a week ago; you've deleted three. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again. I have not deleted ANY contributions he posted. However he also has posted his opinions with some of the same URL references in the lead. This will not stand. Any information on the subject, Praise or Criticism will be presented without framing or opinion. And opinions on the subject aren't even supposed to be discussed in the disussion page. It's non-productive. I could be working on articles instead. This has been covered in a lengthy (archived) discussion he started, but didn't participate in. It has been determined in the discussion I have not used ownership and have not deleted contributions to this article, nor did I revert any deletions by other Users during the discussion, nor have I made any attempt to or contribute to or render this (or any article) non-neutral in any way. And, the article is non-neutral and is not biased except for his opinions expressed in his constant reediting of the lead paragraph. It's a complete, neutral article of which I followed all opinions expressed for its improvement (size, additional sections, splits) for two years, including Problems section (which was added two years ago) and more recently as in project discussion, three new articles I made from this one to reduce its size - a separate Chevrolet Cosworth Vega article, a separate Pontiac Astre article, and General Motors Rotary Combustion Engine article - the three topics were large sections formally in this article. And in the discussion many Users contributed their ideas and suggestions to which I followed, and some made changes to the article and I did not revert one single change by any User. 842A is the only User upsetting the neutrality of the article (isolated to the lead paragraph), and he posted the tag! His internet and book sourced criticism added to Reviews is presented with neutrality, but not in the lead paragraph, which he is using to express his opinion. The criticism must be presented without framing or bias of the User. The lead paragraph will remain neutral as is the rest of the article. Please review the the archived discussion in the Automobile Project discussions.[1] (Barnstarbob (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO the final three paragraphs of the intro section are unnecessary. What I think this article needs is a "Legacy" section which can serve as a more balanced way of assessing the Vega's place in automotive history than the current Praise/Criticism format. ObtuseAngle (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Consider it done. The quotes were only put in to keep the lead neutral. 842A keeps listing every piece of negative criticism in the lead with his framing and opinion. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Ok ObtuseAngle, paragraphes removed. It has been returned to a shortened version of the lead used in the last article discussion. (Now it looks like other Wikipedia article's lead paragraphs). If you think anything else is not needed in the lead, please advise. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks good. I wouldn't change a thing. The shortened intro makes the article stronger. ObtuseAngle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, how does it make the article stronger?(Barnstarbob (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarb, this is a group effort. I like the idea that you consider a google knol -- you've tried both here on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia to take credit for this article &ndash and that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. No one gets the credit. As for the article, I'd suggest an article that goes less far to include trivia and quite a bit further to include the information that's so readily available on the car's ultimate impact – and then nutshell the article in the introduction. Barring that, include the legacy up front, in the intro, where it wont' be overlooked, and make sure it's well sourced. Either way, the COI tag is fitting. 842U (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

842A, Nice try and welcome to the group. I've been working with the group for two years on this and take only partial credit. Check the archived discussions here and under Project Automobiles. then you can make a judgement if I've worked on it as a group effort. Again, nice try. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

My vote is that the article was written by someone with a clear COI and that they have taken advantage of the someonewhat marginal interest in the topic to OWN the article.842U (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

842A, You are the one who thinks he OWNS it. You start a discussion in Project Automobiles, then you don't participate, then you proceed to go against everything that was discussed. I'm following that discussion and the suggestions of the Users from it and the discussion from two years ago as well. You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help. Stop accusing me of ownership and conflict of interest. I have all the referenced text, Do you think I would if I didn't like the subject? It has helped the article, not hurt it. You can only pull from the internet, so if my contributions weren't in the article it would be a biased article, wouldn't it? as just about everything on the internet about the car is biased and opinionated. Add whatever trash and criticism you like...I added plenty of criticism myself, more than you, from printed matter, plenty of it. You want to say I hurt the article with close interest in the subject? Consider this..One of a your few auto press contributions, (in criticism) a 1971 Car and Driver article, is the only C&D Vega article archived on the internet. My C&D Vega articles fill a 2-inch binder. (I have binder of Vega articles for each auto publication) Point? Gives a more complete picture when there is more than one, don't you think? know why? The review on the the car a year later didn't site some of those problems with the car because development continued yearly as this article shows. Oh by the way, I added a few lines of C&D praise from that article in the Praise section just to balance things out...You know, keep it unbiased and in context like when the whole article is read. How come its never posted on the internet C&D's Vega won one of their SCCA reader challenge races, or that C&D selected the Vega for its Tire Testing in 1972 & 1974 for its handling. This is Wikipedia, not Car Talk.com. There are many C&D entries in the article, as well as Motor Trend, Road and Track, Road Test and Sports Car Graphic with Praise and Criticism on the car, all not available to Wikipedia readers anywhere since they were published, unless one collects 40 year-old articles, like me. .. a car enthusiast just might want to know what Road and Track's opinion was having actually tested the car, not just what Time's opinion is in 1993. (Has that editor even seen one?) Point is the article has hands on reviews and historical perspective, and its presented in a neutral way. the car's problems are half the story. This article gives the complete story. The six years of development and improvements to the car are missing from retrospective accounts that have asserted a "worst car" opinion. One thing is clear. It was a decent car towards the end of its production run. The body integrity improvements, the improvements to the engine and cooling system and the 60,000 mile engine warranty, the completely redesigned rear suspension and upgraded brakes. In this article you will find that information. And I've added retrospective auto press comments up to 2010 including Motor Trend's and others with their current assessments of the car giving as you would say, "the real truth." (By the way you're non-auto book article reviews are quite good for the article and you are commended for some good research and your hard work). Anything I added to this article is presented in a neutral way without bias or opinions from me. I've worked on it as a group effort from the beginning with other Users, most offering suggestions. I do not delete contributions. You're only kidding yourself if you think I hurt the article. Oh, and cut it about the big picture and the real truth bull. The Problems section has been in the article for two years. The facts pertaining to all aspects of the car, good and bad should be more important for an encyclopedia article than reviews, as reviews are a combination of fact and opinion which can be biased depending on its source; nonetheless the reviews here are unmatched anywhere in one article. This is the only place with the facts and the reviews presented without bias or opinion from its (Wikipedia) editors, and it will stay that way as per Wikipedia standards. (Barnstarbob (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and neither are 'Top ten worst cars evar as written by a Prius driving society journalist' articles a substitute for good research and well referenced, easily verifiable, reliable sources. If doing good research is 'taking advantage' of those people who have no interest in the subject beyond some fluff, Wikipedia needs some more, stat. Nevard (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's ok in discussion page formatting to restart the sequencing; the point is not have discussion entries get progressively skinnier; it's to keep them offset from each other. 842U (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstarbob, You've used your own photographs. I have no photos of mine in the article. You've used photos of your cars in the article. I have no photos of my cars in the article. You've built the article around promotional photos from General Motors and Chevrolet. I haven't. You've reverted all of my edits as well as pretty much everyone else's. And you only include the input of others when it aligns with your pro-Vega bias. Do any research on the Vega today and sources paint a very clear picture of the car as poorly engineered, poorly built and damaging to it's makers. And still you don't include that information in the article. You can accuse me of Ownership if you'd like, there's no evidence. Your COI is clearly imprinted in the article. And even if we just look at this discussion here, clearly others agree. Furthermore, your statement "You are following your own agenda and are clearly in need of help." is a personal attack. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks on editors, and I certainly will not either. 842U (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

842A Aren't we on the defense now. How do you like it for a change. Ok, You need help with your editing - hope that's not too personal. You are not following Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and prose. Now, (here we go again) I have contributed over 700 images to Wikipedia. I took 18 photos of the article's 51 images. There are 28 GM and Chevrolet images; the rest are charts and Common images. 4 of them are of cars I own. That is 4 out of 51 images. You must be kidding. Your accusations are again, flawed and biased (like some of your editing). the photo of my Vega Panel truck was included in the gallery only because there was no rear shot of a wagon (or panel) from any source. Without that image included, a rear view of the wagon/panel would not be in the article. My other car, a Millionth Vega, is featured alone, and with the Vega's competitors from the 2010 Motor Trend Classic magazine's Gremlin-Vega-Pinto comparison photo shoot, of which is a free-use photo taken by me, with my Cannon camera. Obviously Motor Trend's photos taken and used in the magazine would not qualify for free use or inclusion here. These are useful for the article, as they show the car with its competitors (for the first time in over 35 years), and images of the Vega milestone car, past or present, are not available elsewhere for free use inclusion. Just because I happen to own that car is no justification for not using its image, which was already concluded in your discussion. (you just don't give up, do you?...more rehash.) All the article's free images are high quality and depict the sections and text of the article. When I started work on the article in Feb 2009 there was one image, the only one in Commons. Clearly since the article's inception - August 2004, images were not available to Users, with only one included in the article for five years. There wasn't even enough text to include additional images, for years, although a gallery could've been used, but wasn't. Well, images were available to me and I used the highest quality photos and images to depict the text I added to the article. This has been covered in discussions; it has been determined that the images used throughout the article are beneficial to the article whether I took some of them or not. Stop beating a dead horse with your accusations. Now, again, I do not delete other User contributions, and have not deleted your actual contribution to this article - mostly negative non automotive sourced criticism to which I've added auto press criticism, and reverted my deleted auto sourced praise. However, it is you that has made unjustifiable deletions. You've deleted complete sections on a whim without notice. Like I said before, The article will remain neutral and unbiased. All the factual information, positive - Awards and Praise sections, and negative - Problems and Criticism sections explain the Cars history - and its status - while it was being produced and sold, as well as its current status. There isn't bias or lack of neutrality as concluded by the discussions. The facts (and reviews), past and present are presented in a neutral way without opinions expressed by any User as per Wikipedia standards. And stop attaching Vegabob to my Username to "frame" your case. Framing isn't beneficial in articles or discussions of the articles. It has been determined two years ago and in current project discussion that my knowledge of the subject does not conflict with Wikipedia's article objective of neutrality, and I've followed all suggestions in discussions to that end. You are a Wikipedia User, as I am. You should spend more time contributing to, or improving articles, instead of wasting time here, rehashing your failed agenda. You should've participated in the Project Automobile discussion you started. Nonetheless, clearly the outcome of the discussion wasn't to your liking. Based on the lack of interest or feedback this time, it is also clear Users have probably had enough of your endless, unproductive and unwarranted accusations. (Barnstarbob (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

Barnstarbob It is against the rules of Wikipedia for you to edit my edits. You know this as it's been pointed out to you repeatedly. Just because you changed your username from Vegabob to Barnstarbob doesn't mean your conflict of interest nolonger exists. 842U (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The conflict of interest that exists is YOU. You are a conflict and pain in the ass. STOP USING VEGABOB(Barnstarbob (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC))