Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (fifth generation)/Archive 2

Muscle car
The subtleties of my arguments are lost on you guys. Camaro and Mustang production history includes the term muscle car as well as pony car. If you can't recognize that, then you are high. Your examples for the MR2 are full of nonsene. I'm out. Enjoy your crappy page. CJ DUB (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CJ DUB - The subtleties of your argument have degraded into incivility and hostility towards other Wiki editors.


 * I'm still waiting on those concise, detailed, supportable reasons why given the presented arguments ONLY the Camaro pages are listed as other than pony car.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bitemyshinymetalass78: I don't think you will get a supportable reason, other than even more rants from CJ DUB wanting to include the muscle and sports car labels to the Camaro. It seems as if all the material that explains the classification in books about pony cars does not matter. Even CJ DUB's statements that true factory muscle models are not "muscle cars" is contrary to reality. It also seems unusual to clam that muscle cars began in 1972! Even books written for children (Wild about Muscle Cars by J. Poolos) have the correct history! CZmarlin (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I will return to defend my rep if not this useless argument, that all i said is you guys are stuck in 1972. Go read it. The arguments that you guys use to say mustang and camaro are NOT muscle cars (i.e. only one part fraction of production) can be applied to other muscle cars. Do the math. CJ DUB (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember the Olds Rocket 88 in 1949 as creating the muscle car...As for the Camaro problem, I see only two solutions;


 * Remove "muscle car" and "sports car" from the Camaro articles, and label them as "pony cars" only


 * -or-


 * Clarify on the Camaro articles that "muscle car" refers ONLY to the SS and Z/28 packages, as well as add similar descriptors to the Mustang, Firebird, Cougar, Challenger, Barracuda, Javelin, Genesis, 350Z, Capri, Celica, and all other pony car articles for their high output variants.


 * Wikipedia must be neutral in its articles, so to treat the Camaro articles as special is in contradiction to the Wiki mission statement and spirit. Do we have a consensus?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

CZmarlin, yes, I see your point and I apologize for the original research comment. I see there is a decent amount of resources you have pulled to identify exactly what a pony car and muscle car is and, honestly, with those definitions, I would see how the Camaro isn't considered a muscle car. Now I'm not arguing that the Camaro isn't a pony car. I agree it is. What I am arguing is the current definition of the muscle car. There's no doubt the main stream media and automotive media are calling the current Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro muscle cars. Are they calling them pony cars as well? Yes, but the vast majority of current reliable secondary sources are claiming muscle cars over pony cars. Why are they doing this? Well, who knows. The two labels have obviously evolved over the past 40-50 years and it makes complete sense it has. So what I've presented here is three major secondary sources that are saying these cars in their current form are muscle cars. (additional note: These are just the three I pulled off the top of my head. I could pull more if needed. Just let me know.) Are we then saying the LA Times (a major non-automotive media outlet), Edmunds.com (the main auto data publisher that's been around for 40+ years), and Jalopnik (a major online automotive media outlet) are wrong? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. The definition is subjective at best. But what we have are reliable secondary sources claiming these cars in their current form to be muscle cars and the Wikipedia policy has always been articles are built from secondary sources. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, on top of the three original sources I'm citing, here four more sources from major media outlets I was able to find pretty quickly with a simple Google search:   roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately ANYTHING can be proven by looking long enough through media articles, as the media have proven themselves time and again to be anything but concerned with accuracy or neutrality. As CZ already pointed out earlier in this discussion;
 * "It is the automaker's marketing department's strategy to promote a perception of muscle and performance to the the rest of the models. That is why this class of vehicles is unique, because the vast majority of pony cars sold are not asphalt-melting muscle cars or road race refined sportsters. However, most pony car purchasers are perfectly happy to own these "specialty" marques with the perceived "performance image" to simply commute to work and run around town, rather than own the "real" muscle versions -- which they would probably not be able to afford. This type of marketing and promotion effort has become integral to the brand equity of each of the pony car nameplates (both historic and currently manufactured), as well as help define the "pony car" marketing strategy. I hope this helps explain the "pony car" mystique! Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)"
 * CZ and I have shown numerous sources from published books, the international Muscle Car Club (just try go to them with a V6 Camaro and tell them you want to register it as a muscle car!), and FROM GM ITSELF, stating the Camaro to be a pony car today and since its inception. Attempting to redirect the argument does not help reach consensus, especially as flawed as your argument is.  Again, I ask if you will concede to either call the Camaro articles pony cars only, or to alter the Camaro articles and the other pony car articles to also and only list muscle car for only the production high performance versions.  These are the only two viable options keep the articles neutral and balanced.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bite, could be true and that could be said about either the pony or muscle car title. Still, when you have this many secondary sources claiming one thing, it needs to be taken into consideration. As for the question you ask Bite, I think neither is either a viable option or solution. I'm just going to have to disagree with you and I think reading WP:VERIFY could help.
 * CZmarlin, I've always worked well with you and you make some real good arguments. Would love to hear what you think of my statements above. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW Rogue, didn't I ALREADY point out earlier in the discussion directly contradicting articles calling the 2009 Camaro a pony car from Edmunds, Jalopnik, LA Times, and Popular Mechanics? Just because a reviewer says it in his opinion article doesn't make it so.  As long as you keep showing me magazine articles calling it a muscle car, I'll keep finding articles from the same sources calling it a pony car.  I'll also throw in articles about family cars called muscle cars, sports cars called muscle cars, and anything else I can find.  The point I'm making is you can't use reviews as a source in this case because they are not scholarly articles, only opinions.  If you can show us more documented scholarly sources proclaiming the Camaro and ONLY the Camaro a muscle car, then I'll drop my argument.  If not, then the article needs to be changed.  I'm also STILL waiting for my detailed, concise argument why the options I offered will not work...if you have one.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to my above point, here's an article from US News and World Report calling it a pony car, and one from Business Week  doing the same. I've already listed articles from Edmunds, Jalopnik, LA Times, and Popular Mechanics. Here's some more from the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune , MotorTrend again (comparing the high performance versions no less as pony cars) , the Miami Herald , the Dallas Morning News , the Canadian paper The Globe and Mail , the Detroit News , and another from Jalopnik (who seem to only parrot what others say, so I don't give them much validity). And again, I point out that I have already shown where GM classifies the Camaro as a pony car. There really isn't any more discussion after that.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bite, I think we've already pointed out that you can find any number of articles claiming the vehicle to be either or. In fact, some of these articles you're posting clearly claim it to be both. Finding sources isn't the point anymore, and I think all of our efforts will be wasted in doing so, so move on from it. If you have been reading anything I've written, then you could also see what I'm arguing here, which I can tell you right now isn't the number of sources. Whatever the case, there's still no clear consensus here. Might be time to bring in other editors here to see what they think. CZ, would still love to hear from you again. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation why the Mustang, Firebird, Challenger, and other pony cars don't get muscle car as well if you are so intent on leaving it on the Camaro page. Why does ONLY the Camaro deserve that label? And how many times do I have to ask? You also keep ignoring that both CZ and I have cited much more reliable sources, such as books from established sources and GM corporate, not magazine or newspaper review opinion articles. If GM considers it a pony car, and there is overwhelming evidence from numerous books that it is a pony car (and there clearly is), then the discussion is over. It's a pony car. If you want to argue over what the current miss-use of the word muscle car is, then take it to urban dictionary or the muscle car page on wikipedia. But for this article, give it up. The discussion was is the Camaro a pony car or a muscle car. GM, published books, and the Muscle Car Club call it a pony car. Newspaper reviews can call it a muscle car all they like, but citing their opinion doesn't make them correct. I can show you newspaper articles calling the AR-15 a machine gun all day long as well, but that doesn't make it true.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to keep waiting then. I'm editing this article. Not those. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you obviously aren't interested in discussion and are only here for vandalism. CZ and I have made our case, you haven't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another policy you should read is Assume good faith. Just an FYI for ya. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked repeatedly for you to make your argument as to why only the Camaro article gets special consideration against other articles from its same class that have been cited by both sides in the discussion. You have both failed and refused to do so.  You have been shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your position, and still fail to yield.  Trying to intimidate me with Wiki policies or changing the subject of the argument does not help you to personally "win" it or help the group achieve consensus.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit, you need to read Vandalism too and stop reverting sourced information. Also, keep in mind consensus isn't always going to be reached on your schedule. There are many many editors on this article that need to chime in. The reason you aren't hearing from me is because I'm looking for other editor's feedback at this point. I know where you stand already. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but by what right did you remove my sources, given that they are from published books more reliable than your opinion articles? You've just vandalised my work.


 * Camaro: A Legend Reborn by Larry Edsell, an officially licensed GM book, also by Motorbooks, ISBN-13: 9780760328194, states the original and 2009 Camaro as a pony car, from quotes from its own GM designers. Or do you refute this as well?Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Directly from Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Umm, who is 75.1.183.243? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you happy with the article as is now? The next step is to systematically find the same sort of references and change the other applicable pony car articles to include muscle car for their high performance versions, as per my offer earlier, so all the articles have parity.  Why this took so long I don't understand.Bitemyshinymetalass78 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Is anyone else confused? Other editors, please please please... chime in. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Z-28
Is there any place in this article to mention the on-again, off-again Z-28 effort, or is it too speculative to include? It's something that fans of Camaros ask about often, so I'd think it would be beneficial to at least inform people here that it's only being hinted at. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is something I've been keeping up with a lot. I would say all of the information out there is too speculative for now, but as soon as something solid comes by, I would love to place it in this article. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While the amount of speculation itself is notable, I'm against adding mention of the Z28 here until GM or some news service (aside from car magazines and blogs) makes an announcement. I don't like to see this or similar Wikipedia pages degrade into fansites or rumor mills.  There are plenty of other sites out there for that. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)