Talk:2008–2010 automotive industry crisis/Archive 1

distinction from the current economic crisis
This page is good so far and it already mentions that there were other factors contributing to this situation, aside from the current predicament of the total american economy. I'm happy with the page as is, but as we move forward, I think we need to keep all the elements of this page that drive that point home. The auto industry crisis has been in the making for some time (due to foreign competition, not due to domestic circumstances), and as such it can be seen as something that is distinct from the Wall Street crisis. I'll put my own bias out in the open: I believe that the inability of the "Big 3" to compete with foreign auto industries is the driving factor behind what we are seeing, and the "Big 3" are trying to avoid mentioning this because


 * Amen to that. The name of article implies a connection with the banking crisis.  That link is spurious.  American car manufacturers make an inferior product and are massively burdened with huge retired-worker costs and strong unions.  As a result, they have not been profitable and the recent petrol prices and now the funding crisis (due to the banking crisis) have brought them to the edge - sooner than they would otherwise have got there.  Foreign car manufacturers are not in this position and do not have the same history and it is absolutely *wrong* to lump them into this article. Toby Douglass (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So a 30% or more drop in Toyota sales does not make it part of the crisis? GM is making better cars than they have in decades, its pricks like you who refuse to see facts--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A: they want people to think this is just another symptom of the credit/equity crisis, so it supposedly merits a handout on terms similar to those of wall street. B: they know very well that even if this crisis were solved tomorrow, or if they received 3 times the bailout money they were asking for, it will remain just as hard to compete with foreign companies (and the prospect of the "Big 3" recovering will be just as hopeless). it's no secret that everyone expects that if they get the money, they'll be right back for another handout.

also the page might be able to use a mention of the factories that foreign auto companies own in the US. those factories provide many jobs, the foreign companies behind them are doing fine, and employees at those factories earn about half of what the employees of the "Big 3" make. employees of foreign-owned factories in america are working class americans who earn significantly less than the employees at GM/ford factories, so they will understandably be miffed if the government bails out the Big 3 to subsidize the $80/hr employees at GM factories (not to mention their CEOs who fly to washington in private jets), while the employees of honda's american factories will continue to make $40/hr or less.

24.190.132.242 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, some of the people who oppose a bailout for the Big Three also oppose the bailout for Wall St. Ron Paul is one such example. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * there seems to be some misinformation about. The transplants are in trouble too--the latest totals show GM sales fell 41% this year, Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down about as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%. The wage rates are $55 for Big Three blue collar workers and $45 for transplants. Note that the Big Three have very large numbers of retirees who get pensions and health insurance, and the transplants have few.  Neither the Big Three nor the transplants actually "make" cars. They mostly assemble parts made by the parts companies, which have far more workers. (They also design cars and sell them. Union members comprise less than a fourth of the workers at risk here--generally the people who design cars and those at dealerships are not union members.) Rjensen (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most point of view thing i have ever heard, not true too, the 80 an hour includes retirees.--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone of article seems way, way negative against the auto industry
I placed a neutral POV check at the top of the article.--Msr69er (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When I first read the article, the introduction blamed the U.S. auto crisis "mainly" on the "global financial crisis" and the "related credit crunch," but it did not cite any sources.


 * So, I added sources to show that the Asian auto companies that build cars in the U.S. with U.S. workers are doing just fine.
 * look at statistics, there hurting too.


 * The reason the article is highly negative against the U.S. auto industry is because the article is reflective of the sources that are cited. All of the things that I added to the article are facts. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about facts. If those facts reflect negatively on the U.S. auto industry, then that should be reflected in the article.


 * The only alternative is to sugar coat the article with false information, and that goes against wikipedia policy. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * like you are doing?--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote part of the intro comparing the non-unionized employees of the Asian automakers' US operations with the Big 3 who are tied to UAW contracts. I used the exact same facts cited in that paragraph before, simply did a better job IMO of explaining both sides of that issue as the cited article from the Detroit News makes a half-hearted attempt to do (and I think that article is strongly anti-union as it is). It is important not to be biased and have a neutral point of view even when citing facts. I agree that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about facts, that's why it's critical to not spin those facts to support one viewpoint at the expense of another, which I feel was occurring here. That weakens Wikipedia as a neutral resource that readers can trust.--Msr69er (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * it is not true that the Asian car companies are doing fine. Toyota today announced its first lost in 70 years, and its sales in the US have fallen about as much as GM and Ford this year. Their advantage is that they do not have hundreds of thousands of retired workers getting health insurance and pensions.Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree in that I see no mention of the years of the US auto industry lobbying against higher fuel efficiency standards...--Billymac00 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The section: "CEOs fly private luxury jets to ask for taxpayer bailout' should be removed
It does not contain encyclopedic content and is worded like a news article. It is simply a list of facts.


 * The section proves that they were lying when they pled poverty. It's very relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keeping corporate dinosaurs alive
It is ironical that the US Government, who consistently preaches free-market policies abroad, would spend billions in bailing-out industries whose present-day woes may be just early signs of their future non-viability.

The protection of non-competitive or doomed companies is in contradiction with a free-market system as opposed to a state-controlled one. There are no in-betweens. - Xufanc (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The only federal politician who truly believes in the free market is Ron Paul. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its funny how such companies claim they don't want government interference, and the free market is best left alone, and then when things go tits up, they're all crying for government intervention. I suppose this is just proof that unbridled capitalism doesn't work. The US car industry is doing a very good impression of British Leyland in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e they're making cars that no one wants to buy, that never break into foreign export markets and have huge reliability issues over their European/ Japanese counterparts. Not only that but the unions in both cases almost always got their own way, after months of industrial action. The difference was that British Leyland was nationalised, until it became Austin Rover. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Presenting pros and cons
It seems to me that a sensible way to get over this dispute would be simply to present both sides of the argument, rather along the lines of the Bush vs Obama differences. There are obviously valid points to make on both sides of the fence. If some of the emotion could be removed from some of the comments on this talk page we would have a good basis for an additional section in the article and could get rid of the dipute tag.- Ipigott (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove neutrality tag?
Now that both sides of the argument have been clearly put forward in the article, I think it should be in order to remove the tag. Unless there are any objections within the next few hours, I will do so later today.-Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello all, nice job with this so far. A few ideas; I'll pitch in down the road (keeping busy with the subprime crisis). 1) Mention the Chrysler bailout. There is a historical precedent for a turnaround, with new management and funding.  2) See the following article from NYT regarding a pre-packed bankruptcy and discussion of pros/cons. NY Times - Sorkin 3) Mention the concept that is argued by the Big 3 that a bankruptcy means people won't buy the cars due to long-term warranty concerns, and how to overcome these. 4) How much bailout money are we talking about? Some say $25 billion but on Charlie Rose auto industry expert said $50 billion minimum needed. Great debates by experts here; worth listening to this Charlie Rose Show 5) Talk about industry structure.  Big 3 have lots more, smaller dealerships and more brands than successful competitors.  These cannot be reformed easily without bankruptcy.  6) Put in some examples of how much more Big 3 pay workers than Toyota (I've heard $70 vs. $50). Thanks and keep up the good work.Farcaster (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific information vs vague non-information
The article had said:

"While the Asian companies pay their U.S. employees to build cars, the Big Three U.S. automakers pay more than 12,000 employees their full salary and benefits to spend all day solving crossword puzzles, watching TV, and other activities that have nothing to do with building cars. "

But then someone replaced it with:

"There is some concern that the labor policies of American automakers are too costly, as union contracts and employment arrangements sometimes result in pay for non-productive tasks. "

I restored it to the original.

The original text contained specific information and details, so it's interesting to read. The second version was extremely vague and said nothing of interest at all. Readers want specific information. Articles are supposed to match the source. I'm not sure why people keep erasing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

improved
The newest reorganized version by Farcaster is an improvement. There are two passages on the Job Bank and the first version is flippant and POV. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing the stuff about crossword puzzles
The source says they are paid to spend all day solving crossword puzzles. The article is supposed to match the source. Please stop erasing this from the article. This information is fact, not opinion. It's not pushing POV to have it in the article. On the contrary, to keep taking it out of the article is pushing POV. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your work on this Grundle. I agree with Rjensen that it should come out as stated.  I suggest we mention the job bank idea and how it works at a high level; that a large number of workers are paid not to work.  But it is needlessly insulting I think to mention the specifics of what these folks do when they are sidelined.  Folks can read the cited source for that information.Farcaster (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing information because you think it's "insulting" is POV. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please carefully read the article before you use it as a "source" that workers are paid to do crossword puzzles. Nowhere in the article does it state this, and the burden of proof lies on you to find actual evidence to support this obviously POV and obviously false claim. At most one can say that they are paid to do nothing and CHOOSE to "watch TV and solve crossword puzzles", which is quite different from what you are implying. Of course, you also omit the community service opportunities and job training available at these programs, but I suppose this can be forgiven if the basic points were correct.


 * However, solely blaming the "Big Three" for the Jobs Bank program even pushes this boundary too far- every source on the subject unanimously agrees that it was created by the United Auto Workers union, that it's maintained by the union, and that it's continuing to be defended by the union, not the executives in Detroit. The union does not care whether GM goes bankrupt or not- all it focuses on is getting more money into it's members pockets. On top of that, your source is 3 years old- and many of the details inside it are now outdated. What happened in 2005 is not relevant to the bailout occurring in 2008. Yes, 12000 workers were in the Jobs Bank program in 2005, but less than 3500 are now, which is fairly large difference. Second, the program has been scaled down quite a bit since 2005. Better sources abound. There is progress in eliminating this program, which is absolutely essential to mention. And I quote:


 * "UAW and GM officials are also quick to point out that the program has already been scaled back significantly in the last year. Before then, workers could stay in jobs banks indefinitely -- some were there for more than 15 years -- but now there is a two-year limit. In addition, jobs bank employees at GM may turn down only one company offer to go back to work at a plant within 80 miles of home, and they cannot turn down more than four offers to work for the company elsewhere in the country."


 * Is there a problem with reporting about the Jobs Bank in this article? No. However, please get the facts straight before doing so. Until someone puts in information about the reasons this program was created in the first place (job security), the fact that the union is the main reason it still exists, and explains how the program has been drastically scaled down in recent years, this passage should and will continue to be deleted. 217.235.192.54 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the program had 12,000 people in 2005. It is also a fact that the Big Three executives chose to fund the program. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to the facts as of 2008. It's true that in 2005 one person (named Ken Pool) took advantage of the program to work cross-word puzzles. that is NOT encyclopedic in the first place and this is an article about 2008, not about conditions for one person three years ago.Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What about rewriting the information on the crossword puzzle issue and putting it into something like a "Trivia" section? If it has caught the attention of the public (like the "CEOs fly private luxury jets holding a begging bowl" issue) its mention in the article is relevant from the encyclopedic point of view. A great sector of the American public is outraged at certain past practices of the Big Automakers and their past background is now under public scrutiny. The facts of 2008 are the culmination of a process and whitewashing the past is counterproductive if the encyclopedia wants to keep relevant and informative. Xufanc (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about white washing, it's about sourcing an OR. Trivia sections are highly discouraged in wikipedia and are only barely allowed (usually with the assumption the details should be eventually merged into the article or removed) in pop culture articles, definitely not in an article like this. This is an article about the automotive industry crisis of 2008 and it is not up to editors to decide to included questionable information of little direct relevance to the crisis. If we had a source which discussed the crosswords bit in light of the crisis it might be okay but as it stands, it's OR to claim that the crosswords bit has anything to do with the crisis. I could just as well claim it is all Bush's fault Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue was settled on December 10th, I never pushed it, your comment is redundant, I know about the Trivia policy and please stop your preaching. Xufanc (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with the article not mentioning the crossword puzzles, because at least it now says they were paid to show up for work even though there was no work for them to do. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

text for bailout packages recently submitted available ?
if you have text for the new proposals from the auto companies, please post asap thanksCinnamon colbert (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Text of the proposals is at this site. U.S. Senate Committee site

reliability claims hourly cost of a worker ?
does anyone have info bias CAR group source high numbers hourly cost workers ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Bailout Bias Evident
I dispute the neutrality of this article. In at least two of the sections purporting to present arguments against a bailout, the author then goes on to contradict those arguments. The arguments for the bailout are not contradicted within the same section in this way. Matt2h (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * the article is put together by many people, each with their own opinions on the very complicated matter. There was no super-editor to make sure all the sections are parallel or of equal length. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just found a paragrpah for one argument that was in the section for the other side, so I moved the paragraph to the appropriate section. I don't think there was any bias intended. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

12Dec08 Last night's Senate vote
12Dec08 – The San Diego Union Tribune says the bailout plan didn’t pass the US Senate last night because they didn’t want to lower the pay of auto workers. It also says the White House might have some extra money to help the auto industry anyway and that the Federal Reserve is allowed to help without taxpayer based funding. --Chuck (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An article in Newsweek indicated that the Senators in the southern states who killed the bill did so because Japanese and German car manufacturers have plants in their states, while American car manufacturers have most of their plants in midwestern states... Ah, politics... ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment
I agree with what has been said thus far. However, it is best to mention all potential causes of this crisis, including those that are within the control of the Big Three as well as those that are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal of the Crisis is a loaded section
The first paragraph is absolutely fine. However, the next paragraph (after the first line which is uncited, but is mostly a popular opinion, at least I think it is) this reads:

"There are ecology-minded sections of the American public that don't view with sympathy the big automakers background of maximizing profits by deliberately destroying mass-transport systems and privately-owned railways between the 1920s and 60s .[107] The big three are held as guilty of contributing to build a fuel-inefficient nation of commuters living in increasingly more distant suburbs. Facing a saturated car market in the US in the early 1920s GM engaged in in a controversial policy along with road-builders that triggered the massive shift from the mass transportation of the previous century to the 'one-person-one-car' trip of today.[108]"

It doesn't matter that this is cited, this is still heavily NPOV, if not at least in the wrong section. I don't think there are many people who will actually disagree with it, but it's still really, really out of place. It's opinion at best, with links to articles that support the opinion.

Consider me making the argument that black people are genetically inferior, I state it as fact, with links to supporting articles. It doesn't make it a FACT, it's still my own opinion even if I have a link to an article that supports my opinion. In that exact same way, this article is heavily opinionated, and out of place with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.74.161 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Image issues and Neutrality
Mentions about ecological concerns are not "heavily NPOV". Unlike with genetical inferiority, the argument at hand has nothing to do with "being". The talk is about past practices of the company. What is a clear NPOV violation is using Wikipedia in order to whitewash a non ecologically sound past record of the company's way of maximizing profits. (Xufanc (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)).
 * Genetical inferiority? WTF are you talking about? If you have a source linking the crisis to a non-ecologically sound record the let's discuss that. If all you want to do is to include information because you think it's relevant without any source showing it's relevant then please read WP:OR. As I said above, this is an article about the crisis. Not about the history of the automotive industry's ecological practices Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know well it is an article about the crisis. It is not me who talked about "Genetical inferiority". It is the excuse the user above used in order to erase the ecological concerns issue section. If you would have just read a few lines above you would have known what was being discussed. Please don't come here with your "WTF" and stay polite, focused and read everything before writing any comment. Image issues like the private-jet issue have loomed large in the crisis recent history. The environmental issue is also one of them. It is all over in blogs and newspapers, you just have to use google. But of course you may choose to ignore it and you will come up with an n-number of excuses. Still, hiding the image issues is certainly not neutral, for it weighs heavily on making-the-big-three-look-good side. I suspect that this is precisely what you are trying to achieve under all that "relevancy" talk. Do whatever, I am tired and I am off for Christmas with the kids. We go sailing, we use as little fuel as possible. Xufanc (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

US Centric
As it stands, this article is very US centric. I've no issue with such an important issue being covered, but maybe it should be renamed "US Automotive industry crisis of 2008", with the smaller, international paragraphs spun off into their own section? Markb (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think changing the name of the article to what you suggest is a great idea. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see why it is US centric as the US companies are further up shit creek then their Japanese and European counterparts. Each country should have its own section or a page that links back to this (not the current European section, the U.S.E hasn't ratified its constitution yet and so it should be listed by country). On the other hand, the failure of U.S companies makes very little difference to the rest of the world. The big three are almost stand alone institutions. Chrysler has never managed to sell cars in Europe (remember Talbot anyone - Chryslers attempt at breaking into Europe which flopped and ended up disolving under the ownership of Peugeot in about 1989), Ford only sell cars through 'Ford of Europe' and Volvo, which presumably swim alone and sink alone, while GM only sell cars under the Opel/Vauxhall badges (as well as the occasional Saab), which are only financed from these institutions. To say that the failure of the 'big three' would be global is true, but it would hardly be detrimental outside of the US, and so the article shouldn't be almost soley about the 'big three' as respective European and Asian companies are more woried about their car manufacturers.Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Art?
The "shifty" ad is not much use unless we are told who made it. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all over the internet. No one knows who made it. But it's still very useful for this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's not. At least, not as the titular image, and personally I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article period, humorous as it is. Reason being is that it's basically inaccurate; the shitty cars haven't been the problem so much as the shitty infrastructures of the companies. Read the article for more information about the cause of the crisis, and save this type of thing for Encyclopedia Dramatica. The Sartorialist (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the criticism section would be a good place for the image. And as far as the quality of U.S. cars, the article cites Consumer Reports as saying that all 10 of the best 10 cars are made by Japanese companies. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved it to "Image" section, which seems appropriate.--Pete Tillman (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh! I like it there! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the image is funny but non encyclopedic. It really isn't referenced in any way. I suggest it be removed. Cheers! BaomoVW (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image needs to be removed. Wikipedia can't be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if we include satire. It's not even correct satire, as a Ford Windstar is shown along with the Ford logo, and Ford is not part of the bailout. There is a place for it however, and it's called Uncyclopedia. Plus if nobody is sure of the source, how do we know that it really has a free license? There are just too many issues with it.--Analogue Kid (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lighten up. And have a look at Satire. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Analogue Kid on this one. Call me prudish, but I don't see "lighten up" as a valid response to those points, with the very basic principle that BaomoVW and I brought up earlier notwithstanding. And to Grundle2600, I agree with you that Japanese cars are better than American ones in most cases, but that's a moot point. As I said before, the quality of the cars had less to do with the bailout itself than the image portrays. Again, sorry if I'm taking this too seriously, but Wikipedia is a serious place and I feel this image compromises that. The Sartorialist (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Sartorialist and Analogue Kid. The image is not encyclopedic, is fair use currently, and further has no real connection with the subject of the article (it's just some funny picture someone to put on the internet, without any real notability). --Falcorian (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Beyond any issue of notability and encyclopedic use (the image has neither), have any of the proponents of keeping the image displayed in this article thought about the fact that neither Ford nor GM nor Chrysler gave Wikipedia or the author of the image any right to use their copyrighted logos in a derogatory manner? The image was created illegally, no fair use policy would protect us against its use. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and all of the Big 3 would have a very good defamation case against us for using the words "shitty" to describe their product and implying a conspiracy on the part of the Big 3 to knowingly deceive their customers and take too much money for an inferior product. If they did decide to sue us for libel, "lighten up" will not be a good defence. Logos states "logos should not be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative". Without repeating to me that this is a joke or a satire, can anyone deny that the logos in the image are used in a strongly negative context? This image is entirely inappropriate, it should be removed and possibly deleted. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you be over-reacting? Humor? Satire? First Amendment? Perhaps you'd like to scour this abomination from the entire Intenet.


 * Get real, d00d. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This image should come out. It undermines the credibility of the article.  A lot of people have worked hard on this article and this use of profanity and humor is just not appropriate.  If you were reading a published paper encyclopedia and saw this ad, it would be inappropriate.  Its funny, its in the permanent record (all Wikipedia versions are saved).  I vote for its removal.Farcaster (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As of right now, Tillman and Grundle are pro / keep. Rjensen, Swik78, Sartorialist, Falcorian, Baomo, Analog Kid, Farcaster are con. (remove). Unless you get some visible support out here, this image should come out.Farcaster (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

IF the image is mentioned, it will still be out of place without a separate section mentioning similar humor by SNL (and probably MadTV or whatever parody show is actually funny these days). The image can't be (and isn't) the only thing criticizing the automakers. (Otherwise, I don't care if it's in the article or not.) --an odd name 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "IF the image is mentioned, it will still be out of place without a separate section mentioning similar humor by SNL"


 * Actually, a few weeks ago, I created such a section with a description and link to the SNL sketch. But the link later stopped working, so the link was removed, and then the section was removed because it was now unsourced. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the image under the Image issues section, I think this is a good compromise for now. However, the problem I have is that it is a non-free image and I'm not sure it really adds much to the article. If it was a free image the encyclopedic value could be more lenient but it's not free. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well someone removed the image again 5 minutes after my edit. I suggest you get some support on here Tillman before adding it back in. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My yes vote was just based on the fact that I thought the image made the article better. If including the image violates copyright, then I change my vote to no. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

YES

 * The "shitty" ad represents a valid and widespread political viewpiont. It is a perfect representation of the anti-bailout side of this issue.  The satire is perfect.  I believe it belongs.  68.177.12.38 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I want the image to be in the article, I respect the majority consensus against including it, so I won't be putting it back in. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel strongly it should be here, and hope to develop a consensus to re-post it. I like it as the lead, but more seem to favor putting it at para. 7, Image issues. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it should be added, however perhaps not on this page. Perhaps a seperate page or section should be made towards public reaction to the bailout.  The issue is now quite large and becoming fairly complex.  The current page needs sorting out, nearly all of it is about the American companies, and very little about Japanese and European companies.  Perhaps there should be separate pages by country, as well as for each concept.Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

NO

 * While I believe that the image would add to the article, the image clearly fails WP:NFCC - the omission would in no way be detrimental to the understanding of the subject; the text conveys it excellently - and is therefore invalid for fair use. The license - a noncommercial one - is not compatible either. – Toon (talk)  18:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this image clearly meets the WP:NFCC test -- the satirical ad graphically and materially aids the reader's understanding of this issue, and is (to quote another editor) "a perfect representation of the anti-bailout side of this issue". Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The omission of that image would not be detrimental to the understanding of the topic at hand, therefore the image fails WP:NFCC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add my name to the straw poll as opposing the use of the image but I still believe that there is a bigger picture to all this with regards to the legal and copyright/trademark issues. I don't have time right now but I will get administrative input on this. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Traditionally, the courts have provided broad coverage for use of trademarked and copyright material for parody and political criticism, under both fair use and First Amendment grounds. See, for example, the section on Parody in NOLO's The Public Domain (2006). --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove it. Inappropriate and compromises the good work out there.Farcaster (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove it. It impedes understanding of the topic by misrepresenting the true origins of the Big Three's need for financial support and by including Ford in the companies who requesting a bailout. Additionally, it is unsourced as SWik78 has pointed out, it is detrimental to the article and Wikipedia's reputation at large, it was never intended for serious referential use, and personally I think it's too stupid and unfunny to even qualify as satire. If this juvenile product of boredom+Photoshop is "a perfect representation of the anti-bailout side of this issue," y'all need better representation. The Sartorialist (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian tariffs?
I think these new tariffs (which may have already been rolled back) were on USED vehicles. Japanese cars that fail the very stringent "safety" checks in Japan are exported, where they become cheap, reliable transport in Russia & elsewhere. Section needs revision & cites. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

New article name?
If this crisis still is current, shouldn't the name be changed to "Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2009"? --Eivind (t) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that it's the year 2010 I think we should rename it "Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010." Grundle2600 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Look at that! That post by me is dated next year. I think there must be a mistake in the wikipedia time-warp continuum. I suppose the point I was (or will be?) trying to make is that as long as this crisis continues, we'll have to keep renaming the article every year. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't mention anything that has occurred in 2010, including the fact that GM has repaid the majority of its loans to the U.S. and Canadian governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRoninLA (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Non Neutral ?
In the introduction we can find : Accordingly, they suffered both from relatively cheap models available from abroad, particularly from Japan and to some extent from Europe, and from so-called transplants, i.e. foreign cars manufactured or assembled in the United States. I think this sentence is quite strage, since that say "USA-company cars were victims of foreign cars, and victim of ofther USA made cars". So... I understand that the big three were the only ones to insist to big mistakes, and that foreign productions are not to blame. Can a native speaker of English improve the sentence to to fit better with the reality (stop to blame foreigners). Yug (talk)  15:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your English is excellent. I think the biggest issue here is that the word "cheap" in the article does not cite a source. I just removed that word, and replaced it with the phrase "higher quality," and I cited Consumer Reports as the source. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

National division
I don't like the way the page is divided by nationality. The current European section should be split by nationalities. The current section lumps British, French, German and Italian Industry in altogether. I am going to do propose two alternative models.

1. Either we just divide the section up by country

2. Or we leave European Industry as the main title and then subdivide it and ajust other to match, for example have a title of North American Industry and then divide it by the US and Canada, and do the Same with East Asian Industry and then sub divide it with Japan and Korea.

I just thought I would gain consensus before implementing any of the above suggestions.

Thanks Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote for prop 2--Conor Fallon (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)
I would do an article that specifically conerns the impact on the US.--Levineps (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced and out-of-date
This article is still unbalanced in favor of US coverage and with too much emphasis on falling US market share as opposed to the problem of falling worldwide market volume. It doesn't even mention the first bankrupcy of the crisis - the "European-ish" automaker Saab! Rmhermen (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What about now?
The section title "United States" should discuss more about the current efforts and aid that the American government is "lending" to the big three automakers. It should explain all the money lent, and if it is producing any effective changes currently. It should also talk about the financial consequences with aiding these automakers. Lastly it should talk more in-depth on the effect the automotive crisis has on the United States employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideburton123 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Automation of jobs
Is nothing ever said about the way all jobs making autos will soon be automated so it's wrong to bail out these companies? Stars4change (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

 * About the The US automakers also suffered from considerably higher wages than their non-unionized counterparts, including salaries, benefits, healthcare, and pensions. In return for labor peace, management granted concessions to its unions that resulted in uncompetitive cost structures and significant legacy costs.

This statement seems to me very simplist and abusive. USA Big three possible union situation don't means tha labor unions are the cause of the current automotive crisis. Philosophy and logic teach : correlation don't means causality. Indeed : Also, it seems abusive for me to link labor unions to the current crisis, like if all other auto-makers still successful had not labor unions. Even if one writer notice this way, it stay dubious to enlighten it and claims it to be causative. Yug (talk)  21:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Labor Union: European automotive groups are know to have large labors unions, but are not falling that much ;
 * 2) Prices: US factories and industries are very advanced in terms of productivity. For sure, wages are high and costly, but US-western factories use computers, high-tech fordism, highly qualified engineers, workers, etc allowing western industry to be much more productive: Renault, BMW, etc all are high cost factories with labor unions still successful.
 * 3) Share and success of labor union: in the 2000's, very few wrokers were unionized in the automotive industry. On the other hand, Factories have closes whatever workers wanted it or not. Say that management granted concessions to its unions that resulted in uncompetitive cost seems really simplist.
 * 4) Other factories : many other also have labor unions, healthcare, ... but are still standing.
 * 5) Other reasons: fuel's price ; decrease of the market ; bad strategies (for long criticized because focusing on big cars) are other major reasons, which are far more likely to be tyhe source of the current fall of the big three... and not of others.
 * Most analysts have made these points--including the US government in the recent bankruptcy statements. The US union health benefits were about $15 per hour--compared to near zero in Europe and Japan (where government, not the car companies, pay health benefits); almost all of GM and Chrysler blue collar workers are unionized (but not the Transplants like Honda or Toyota); fuel prices and SUV issue has been emphasized by most analysts and is not controversial. Yug may not like the facts but since most analysts report them Wiki has to as well. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)