Talk:Chicken tax/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Renata (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As a person working in US taxation, I found the article fascinating. I do have a major complaint: too much stuff is devoted to trucks -- granted that's the important part, but there is complete negligence to mention anything about repeal of European chicken tariff, effects on European chicken market (so did France succeeded in selling chicken to Germany?), or effects on potato starch, dextrin, and brandy industries. In other words, it displays a very clear bias towards US and recent years (all the creative ways to find loopholes). If this is not addressed, I am not sure I will pass the article.

Other minor issues are:


 * but over the next 46 years the light truck tax ossified -> why such precise number? 1963 + 46 = 2009. It's 2010, shouldn't be updated to 47? (reword to avoid the need to update the thing every year)
 * state explicitly in the lead if the tariff is still in effect
 * Though concern remains about its repeal -> very vague and not elaborated later (which is a major omission and should be expanded upon)
 * cartoon in the "background" section -> can't we get the actual cartoon instead of describing it?
 * U.S. chicken overtook nearly half of the imported European chicken market -> in which year?
 * Europe adopted the Common Agricultural Policy -> date please
 * Losses to the U.S. poultry industry were estimated at $26–28 million -> what period?
 * (over 1.8 billion in 2007 U.S. dollars) -> ref please
 * what was the rate of French/European tariff on chicken? when was it lifted?
 * Senator William Fulbright interrupted a NATO debate -> when?
 * potato starch, dextrin, brandy -> why these products?
 * when was the tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy lifted?

Renata (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I failed the article due to not response. What a shame... Renata (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the above thoughts still haven't been addressed. This seems like an important subject in economics, foreign relations, environmental concerns, and other topics. I'm in my 50's and wasn't aware of this chicken tax until just now. This makes so much clear about the absence of VW trucks in the US after 1964, and other imported trucks were scarce in the 60's (though you do see them), but why were Datsun and Toyota trucks selling in vast quantities, and at reasonable prices in the 70's? Can we assume that a Datsun 4x4 PU which sold for $5,000 in the mid-70's could have sold for $4,000 if it weren't for the tax? I had always known that Subaru put back seats in their Brat to avoid tax regulations, but didn't know it was tied to an International hissy-fit.Flight Risk (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The seats in the bed of the Subaru BRAT were *welded* in place. Having them as bolt ins wouldn't have gotten around the tariff since they'd be easy to remove, "converting" the vehicle to a truck. Seems odd that Ford is getting away with essentially the same trick on the Transit Connect with easily removable seats. Safety regulations on such seats then got the BRAT eliminated in the US. The Mitsubishi built Dodge Omni 024 based Rampage truck must have been one the company just bit the bullet and paid the tax. The Courier, L'UV/P'UP, and D50/Arrow got by being imported as "parts" with the beds shipped separate until that loophole was closed in 1980. Bizzybody (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

- the Dodge Rampage/Plymouth Scamp had nothing to do with Mitsubishi, they were built by Chrysler in Illinois on same L-Body platform as the Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon (originally engineered by Chrysler Europe as the Chrysler Horizon/Chrysler-Simca Horizon). As a fully US-built small truck, the tax obviously did not apply.

A few more comments
Mostly on sources.
 * An article on an old matter of law and economy should have quite a lot of printed RS, should it not? This one is based almost exclusively on online press. East of Borschov 09:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the lead, as it stands now, is misleading: "Chicken tax was a 25% tax ...". It is still effective, is it not? (I don't know, I've only read the article). And, although tariffs are a form of taxation, "chicken tax" should not be described as a tax: it makes an impression that it was levied on domestic starch, dextrin etc (the quoted WSJ text says "tax" but the words appear in the middle of the article after a lengthy intro to the subjects). "Tariffs" emerge in the second paragraph of the lead with no direct connection to "tax" declared in the beginning.
 * I checked a few sources ...
 * Ref 4 is an abstract, the real content is at . Consider changing the link to content, not abstract, and add page numbers (I did not read the paper in detail, though).
 * Ref 6 Is this blog from edmunds.com an RS? How is Bob Holland's opinion ("My feeling is that I would like to see ...") relevant to the statement in the article ("Though concern remains about its repeal..."). What concerns, BTW? Say it clearly, it's not a secret: Detroit lobbies for protectionism.
 * Ref 17 (New Sprinter van plant to be built) leads to nowhere. Blog again.
 * Ref 18 does not confirm the statement made in the article. This NYT article does not discuss the tariffs at all. It backs up the mention of Gaffney, SC made earlier in the article, but being a 2001 source it cannot confirm "2001 to 2006". Misplaced link?
 * Ref 12 redirects to another Cato Institute op-ed . Is it relevant? It does not support anything except for the "diplomacy failed" bit (not even "after 18 months").
 * Ref 13 is about brandy alone. The statement lists "potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks", as if Ref 13 applied to all these products.

Cheers, East of Borschov 09:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is accurate to say that diplomacy failed after 18 months. It would be more accurate to say that after 18 months president Johnson abandoned diplomacy and introduced punative sanctions.203.184.41.226 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)