Talk:Chrysler/Archive 3

"Global Big Three"
I have read that in the years following World War II; General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were not only the three largest automakers in the U.S.A. but in fact on the entire planet. I am wondering if there is any information as to when Chrysler fell out of third place internationally? I would suspect sometime in the 1960's, during which Volkswagen was mass producing they're Beetle cars. Does anyone know the exact year?JeepAssembler (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiat box
The Fiat box is a little....stupid to have on here. All it says is all the Fiat brands, of wich Chrysler is NOT. Chrysler and Fiat will remain seperate companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.37.27 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
I assessed the article as start class because it has way too much coverage of electric and PHEV vehicles given the relative importance of those to the company and the focus the company has put into them and the relative lack of coverage of the rest of the things an auto company article should cover. I didn't want to change someone else's assessments without discussion though. Of course GM and Ford's articles also way overstate their green efforts as well. - Taxman Talk 13:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

EV program
The section on EVs needs to be completely rewritten based on recent changes: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE5A605N20091107 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skmacksler (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler's November sales
'''Last month, Chrysler had sold only 63,560 vehicles: a decline of 25%.

Source: http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20091201/BIZ/91201020/US+Nov.+auto+sales+hold+steady

Jeff39212 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009 sales
In December, Chrysler Group LLC had managed to sell only 86,523 units throughout the US.

Source: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/01/05/460570.html

Jeff39212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.148.27 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

UConnect
I did a bit of work on the UConnect thing, but I don't know much about it. Does anyone have more information about it than I do? Dakane2 (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More info
I just added some more info about Uconnect a few days ago (what models it's available on). Reelcheeper (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

History -- 3 years out of 87
The history section in this article currently covers 1923-1926, the founding period of the company. It should include less about the founding years and more from the period 1927-2010, IMHO. This could all be summarized in the space currently devoted to Maxwell. Thundermaker (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * stock performance summary -- If a hypothetical investor had bought at the IPO and sold at the Chapter 11 announcement, what would his return have been?
 * two government bailouts
 * bankruptcy
 * unionization -- How and when did Chrysler become unionized?
 * Iacocca's destruction of Mopar tools

Bailout
Chrysler has been bailed out financially by the US government twice when facing bankruptcy, about 30 years apart. Where has that info gone? Chrysler bailout redirects to this page. I think the loan topic deserves its own page (possibly two, one for 1979 and one for 2009) as well as its own section on this page. For now I'm going to change the redirect to point to History_of_Chrysler. Thundermaker (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This statement is wrong: 'On June 10, 2010, Chrysler Group LLC emerged from a Chapter 11 reorganization'. It should say 2009. I don't know how to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.109.128 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Aerospace industry
This article completely ignores a significant part of Chrysler's history. In the 1960's, they were involved in the aerospace industry, being the contractor for the S-IB rocket stage (first stage of Apollo Saturn I and Saturn IB launch vehicles.

In fact, the aerospace propulsion industry gets most of its "Aerospace Standards" and Recommended Practices from the Society of Automotive Engineers, rather than the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hell of a jump there, isn't it?
The History section of the article has quite a massive jump from the company being renamed "Chrysler" in the 1920s to the DaimlerChrysler merger in the 1990s. What, did nothing happen between those two events? No acquisition of Dodge Brothers, the Rootes Group, or American Motors? No decline in the '60s and '70s? No drastic downsizing and reorganizing of the company in the late '70s and early '80s? No loan guarantees from the U.S. government?

I know there is a History of Chrysler article, but the History section of this article should at least be a reasonable summary of that article.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing information
I have filled in the time gaps (mainly using History of Chrysler) and missing work for the Government (radar antennas, missile, and space boosters).

Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Chrysler vehicle lifetime warranty, listed under Marketing
I just purchased a 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 with lifetime warranty. It includes all the powertrain and most everything except normal wear and tear stuff such as tires, brakes, clutch, wipers and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.6 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

SRT Brand addition?
Just tossing out the question if anyone would want to update the brands section with the new SRT brand, brought back summer 2011. I work in Chrysler Group PR (see my user page), but won't touch this article. If anyone wants to do it and has ?? for info, email me. Miked918 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of. --Miked918 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

no history on Fiat relationship
Under "History", the flow is from early corp. history (1920's to WWII) to "Brands" (all time) to "Special programs for the Government" (WWII) to "Daimler Chrysler" which allegedly covers history (that's still the main section heading) from 1998 to 2011, but it doesn't mention Fiat in the reorg in 2009. And there's no mention of Fiat anywhere else, except the lead to the article. No info on this relationship except in the lead. Adcva (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE
This page doesn’t reflect the Fiat alliance or the profits it has made as a result. This should be addressed. RGloucester (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Electric vehicles
1) I think Chrysler's ENVI division is now closed; 2) In the article: Chrysler is also currently planning at least three hybrid vehicles: the Chrysler Aspen hybrid, Dodge Durango hybrid, and the Dodge Ram hybrid including HEMI engines. The Chrysler Aspen was discontinued. Same for the Durango hybrid.---Now wiki (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

History
Why in this section there is no mention of the what happened to Chrysler under DaimlerChrysler, private equity firm Cerberus, bankruptcy in 2009 and rescue by the U.S. Government???---North wiki (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Imported from Detroit
Correct me if I am mistaken, but shouldn't the "Imported from Detroit" campaign be placed in the Chrysler (division) article not the Chrysler Group LLC article. VX1NG (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Daimler Chrysler
Did anyone notice that DaimlerChrysler is a redirect pointing to Daimler AG, and doesn't properly deal with Daimler-Chrysler ? 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed links to redirect to Chrysler merger section on Daimler AG VX1NG (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Uconnect duplication
There are now two sections (4.3 and 4.5) covering essentially the same subject. Will an editor with the resources please merge these. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Excessive soap and directory content
Unencyclopedic content in this article includes lists of non-notable directors and management staff; also glowing descriptions of past advertising campaigns. The lede is also stuffed with boring corporate minutiae. Can I suggest that a well-informed non-COI enthusiast editor give this article a good working over? Alternatively, a completely uninvolved editor such as myself might come back and give it a real pruning. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can hit the lead section. I've already given it one shot; I need more time to give it a better overhaul, but I think what I've done is better and provides a history of the company in a nutshell. I think I need to put a little more into the role Chrysler held in the U.S. auto industry bailout and perhaps remove some of the detail of the events of 2009–2011. Thoughts? &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Manly is incorrectly linked to a deceased head of state.

Requested move 16 December 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved for now, just until the new title enters common usage, or a disambiguation plan arises.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Chrysler → FCA US LLC – Name change announced 16 December. — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Move - The company has officially changed its name as of today, and the article should be renamed for accuracy, with a redirect from Chrysler. Onel5969 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Move See above Jaredclce (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps Chrysler should become a disambiguation page instead.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a good idea. Jaredclce (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For this move to take place, evidence would be required that the WP:COMMONNAME of the company has changed. That is unlikely on the day of the name change. We do not necessarily use a name because it is official; see WP:OFFICIAL. The suggested title is probably not WP:RECOGNIZABLE to a vast majority of readers. Also, "LLC" is not normally included in article titles per WP:NCCOMP. Dekimasu よ! 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I forgot about that LLC rule. And I suppose you are right (and I like how you handled the lead). There is a reason I treated a move as controversial.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Split The history of the company, though its various incarnations, (ie. Daimler-Chrysler, etc) should be documented in one article "Chrysler", while the current corporate entity (Fiat-Chrysler) should be a separate article. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This sounds good too.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is enough material, splitting would be a fine idea. Failing that, it should remain at its current name until/unless a new WP:COMMONNAME emerges. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Split: as per above would be best—one page for the company—another for the brand. This would be similar to General Motors and Chevrolet. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems we already have Chrysler (division). OSX (talk • contributions) 10:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – First, we don't react to name changes by moving titles; we wait until the new name is demonstrably most common in recent sources, at least. Otherwise we destroy WP:RECOGNIZABILITY.  Second, we do not include in titles suffixes such as LLC.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. I also note that the article is not currently named Chrysler Group LLC for similar reasons. kennethaw88 • talk 05:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above-mentioned WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:COMMONNAME. Thundermaker (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment After a week, the closest we have come to consensus appears to be that while the company has changed names, a move would be inappropriate right now because the new name is not commonly used. Anyone who agrees want to close this?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

FCA [NOT FCA US] is seventh largest automaker worldwide
Global ranking (7th) represents combined vehicle sales for all FCA Group brands. FCA US LLC (or, different perimeter, FCA Group sales in NAFTA) account for approximately half of that figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.88.22.8 (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Chrysler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120408194842/http://www.timelessrides.com:80/wiki/dodge to http://www.timelessrides.com/wiki/dodge
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090124053942/http://daimlerchrysler.com:80/dccom/0-5-7145-1-858191-1-0-0-0-0-0-11979-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html to http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0-5-7145-1-858191-1-0-0-0-0-0-11979-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140606233729/http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=AF06604DAB3EEA2C43505B1EA16A5046?&id=11432&mid=207 to http://media.chrysler.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=AF06604DAB3EEA2C43505B1EA16A5046?&id=11432&mid=207
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204113604/http://www.prnewswire.com:80/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-04-2006/0004242655&EDATE to http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-04-2006/0004242655&EDATE
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204113755/http://news.prnewswire.com:80/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-05-2009/0004949198&EDATE= to http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-05-2009/0004949198&EDATE=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140407072522/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120319/AUTO0101/203190378/1148/auto01/Chrysler-Pure-Detroit-agree-mediation-settle-Imported-from-Detroit-suit to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120319/AUTO0101/203190378/1148/auto01/Chrysler-Pure-Detroit-agree-mediation-settle-Imported-from-Detroit-suit
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091027210744/http://www.insideline.com:80/chrysler/aspen/2009/chrysler-kills-durango-and-aspen-hybrids.html to http://www.insideline.com/chrysler/aspen/2009/chrysler-kills-durango-and-aspen-hybrids.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Imperial's reversion to model status under the Chrysler brand
The article originally stated that Imperial was folded back under the Chrysler brand in 1973 (making it the Chrysler Imperial, again, as it had been prior to the 1955 model year). According to the book, "American Cars, 1960 to 1972", written by J. "Kelly" Flory, Jr., this change took place with the 1971 model year, making the 1970 Imperial the last as a stand-alone brand in that era. Mhrogers (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of controversy section
I recently removed the controversy section from the article. I'm not sure these pages should have a section called "controversy". WP seems to generally stay away from such headings as well as headings like "criticism". That said, the reason why I removed it was because the one item in that section seemed of very marginal significance given the history of Chrysler (founded ~90 years ago and grew to become one of the largest companies in the world). I've posted on several car company talk pages asking what criteria should be used before a controversy is considered significant enough to exist on an article page. For example the Ford Pinto controversies or the GM Corvair controversies seem significant enough for inclusion (the Pinto case currently isn't on the Ford page) because they were either large in scope, deaths were attributed to them, or the significantly changed the legal or public perception landscape regarding automobiles. I've started a Automotive project page conversation about it here  Springee (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016
I would suggest adding that Fiat bought a major stake in Chrysler July 2011 and that it is own by an Italian base company. This page indicates that it is an American car company. They manufacture cars in America but it is in fact an Italian car company.

Colobull (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
 * The lede of the article already says it is owned by Fiat. RudolfRed (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Chrysler → FCA US LLC – Chrysler group changed its name. FoxNewsChannelFan (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this new title means nothing to people - acronyms are not a good thing for titles . We did not move this every other time because Chrysler is still the most common name. Cant fix copy and paste move...will need help here. -- Moxy (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * FoxNewsChannelFan, PLEASE do not make such moves again without having consensus. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have left "FoxNewsChannelFan" a note about moves on his talk page...best that problem is talked about in  personal space. We can help him there. -- Moxy (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:UCN -- not the common name, just look at current news reports -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FCA isn't the primary topic for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles yet, either. FCA Italy is a short article about the holding company, but the commonly recognizable article about the actual car company is still at Fiat Automobiles, and not the poorly-recognized acronym. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This change was proposed previously and the conclusion (as of 16 December 2014) was: "page not moved for now, just until the new title enters common usage." Even after more than one year, the FCA US LLC name has not entered common usage. Thanks - CZmarlin (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as before. kennethaw88 • talk 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Use common name. Springee (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Propose removing NPOV tag from article
The NPOV tag on the article is not supported by legitimate concerns on the talk page. A single editor WP:NOTGETTINGIT doesn't warrant a NPOV tag. Springee (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal Springee (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal - There is no reason for one contributor to tag this article. CZmarlin (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask that rather than start a new talk page thread for a vote you return to the thread above, the one linked to from the POV article tag, and there engage in dialog toward addressing the neutrality of this article? The POV tag asks you not to remove it until the neutrality issues are resolved. A colleague asked you a question at near the end of the above thread to which you have yet to respond. Neutrality is not negotiable; neutrality is not subject to a local consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed. HughD is the only editor who supported the tag or the claims of NPOV. Since no other editor has supported the claim the tag is removed by consensus. If he feels a NPOV tag is warranted he should get at least one other supporting editor before restoration. I would remind HughD that just because you feel there is an issue doesn't mean others agree and the use of the tag is subject to group consensus. I would suggest you open a NPOV discussion if you feel that people here aren't giving your POV the weight you think it deserves. Springee (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are invited to join the discussion of the neutrality of this article in the above thread. As per the clear instructions in the POV article hat, please do not remove the POV article hat until the neutrality issues are resolved. Please do not edit war to remove the POV article hat. Edit warring over a POV article hat is particularly abhorrent form of edit warring. Thank you in advance for your commitment to our project's pillar of neutrality. Hugh (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have revenge tagged this article because it isn't going your way. Simply claiming their is a NPOV issue doesn't make it so, especially when NO other editors support your POV.


 * ,, , , , , As recent editors to this page I'm seeking editorial input. HughD contends that the removal of content from the article here , ,  and discussed on the talk page here  constitutes a NPOV issue and thus justifies placing a NPOV tag on the article page.  Do you agree that the article should be tagged?  Do you have opinions on the content HughD proposes to add to the article?  Thank you.  Springee (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully ask, how did you select these colleagues for notification? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also pinging, , . The original list was all Talk Page editors through February (though I missed FoxNewsChannelFan and wbm1058).  I've now extended the list to all 2016 Talk Page editors.  Springee (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support — Time and again I see WP editors treating articles about companies or their products like WP:BLPs, showing excessive caution in trying to protect the subject from the slightest hint of criticism if it doesn't meet some arbitrary standard. We do not need to be that vigilant about protecting the image of a car or a car company. We're not risking real-world harm to a living person. This kind of information is well-sourced and widely-publicized. Yes, we agree that many recalls are UNDUE and ROUTINE, but only in the sense that a lot of articles get too crufty with mentions of routine recalls, and lacking the context for how common recalls are, it can kind of look bad if we spend too much time on one. Kind of -- but there are many, many more important things. Even if this is a recall that we might prefer to not mention, the paragraph does not throw off the whole article's neutrality. At most an inline or section tag could be added, and even then, there's not really a need because the discussion is happening right here.Warning readers the article is not neutral just leaves them scratching their heads for no good reason. And we don't need to be so aggressively deletionist about the history and facts related to cars. It's a matter of polishing the article to perfection, not a glaring flaw. Maybe it should be left alone until such time at it gets nominated for GA so we can work on more important things? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Chrysler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140411014151/http://www.chryslergroupllc.com:80/company/leadership/pages/management.aspx to http://www.chryslergroupllc.com/company/leadership/pages/management.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203224451/http://www.reuters.com:80/article/pressRelease/idUS217066+03-Jan-2008+PRN20080103 to http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS217066+03-Jan-2008+PRN20080103
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614135955/http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110629/CARNEWS/110629852/0/videonewsarchive to http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110629/CARNEWS/110629852/0/videonewsarchive
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140407094736/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=534 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=534

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable recall
An editor recently added a brake booster recall section to the page. This was a reversion of a removal of the material by me. Per WP:Project Automobile discussion here, this is not an encyclopedic recall. The limitation of recalls to only the most notable was supported by the following editors (notified due to involvement in the discussion):, , , , ,. Springee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you might be mistaken. These are mainstream media, and they are not routine coverage. They have named reporters quoting multiple sources, referencing past events in the timeline of the story. No severe crashes or deaths are mentioned, but over 800,000 vehicles were recalled and it was a safety issue. Maybe a close one, but I would probably allow it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the coverage in the WP article should be limited to only the largest or most significant recalls. So for Ford it would be things like the Pinto fuel system, the Firestone tire recall, probably the cruise control recall.  Toyota would be the unintended acceleration related recalls.  GM in recent times would be the ignition switch.  Perhaps others.  When looking at this Chrysler recall I can't see it coming close to any of those Ford, GM or Toyota examples.  This is the sort of recall that has never made it to any of the infamous recall lists (not that those are the best indicator).  Springee (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, you are mistaken. Here is the proposal from the project talk page archive:

"Proposal:recalls are mentioned in articles when they have received widespread attention in the MSM. This does not include single MSM articles mentioning them as they are announced."


 * This is an entirely non-controversial, straight-forward application of our due weight policy to automobile recalls. As an experienced editor, you well understand coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, and in any case a Wiki Project may not adopt a local over-ride of our project's core policy. Please note it does not say "only the most notable" may be included or "no recalls may be included." "Only the largest" or "only the most significant" or "only the most notable" would limit Wikipedia coverage to one recall regardless of coverage in reliable sources which is clearly incorrect. Regarding your recent section blanking of the "Product recalls" section of this article, is it your position that our article should reflect that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls? Did you try even the most cursory search before your section blanking? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * HughD, I'm sorry you have brought your edit warring to this article. So you are claiming that this recall, a recall that has been tied to no injuries, would be as notable as recalls like the Pinto fuel tank recall or the Toyota unintended acceleration recall.  Plenty of recalls have been covered at the time in mainstream news sources when they occurred.  However, most of those (including this Chrysler recall) are forgotten after the fact. To quote the Project Automobile discussion, I respectfully recommend the application of common sense. Don't ban mention of recalls, but only mention the ones that are critical. Big ones, ones that hit the headlines, ones that involve high profile litigations.... That's probably only 1% or 2% of all the recalls that happen. But please let's avoid attempting to dream up "one size fits all rules" where they're not needed and where they can too easily become an excuse for unproductive p**sing contests.   HughD sadly came here to make this a p**sing contest.  Springee (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, at least the second recall you added may be significant enough for inclusion. Again, we should use judgement when deciding which recalls will really be notable in 20 years.  The first one you restored as part of a wikihounding effort is very unlikely to make it to any long term list.  We should be careful about including recent recalls just because they were recent. Springee (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2016(UTC)  Edit, please read your sources more carefully before editing the article.  Your edit was very sloppy.  First, your edit reads like the recall was 1.7 million vehicles related to airbags.  The articles you added actually referred to several recalls at once.  The airbag recall was ~1.1 million vehicles.  WP is WP:NOTNEWS and we should not just repost headlines.  Second, the three sources say no fatalities, not two fatalities.  Why did you put two fatalities in the article?  Again, since there were no deaths this seems like a case of you dumping dirt into the article.  Please save that for your Koch family and Tea Party articles, not here.  Springee (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines for inclusion of vehicle recalls should be significant enough to shape the product, change the business strategy of the automaker, etc. There are numerous recalls conducted on a regular basis. They are typically not encyclopedic in nature. Having it reported in the general media does not signify a recall's notability for an encyclopedia article. For example, last month's recall by Toyota (one of countless problems encountered by this automaker) involves almost 2.87 million cars (see here) and it has been reported by major media worldwide. However, even this recall does not rise to the level as Toyota's huge historic product defects, and thus this latest recall is not included as part of WP's article on Toyota. Similarly, Chrysler's brake booster recall is not noteworthy for an article about the history of this company. Just because a recall is noted by The New York Times, does not make it newsworthy for inclusion an encyclopedia article. Please notice that there is a major distinction between serving as a news report and that of an encyclopedia. CZmarlin (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for removing the second recall article (the one that incorrectly stated 2 fatalities). If you would like to remove the brake booster per talk page consensus I would appreciate it (I've removed it twice today which is once too many).  Springee (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous consensus that received unanimous support said nothing about "change the business strategy". That's a novel criterion we haven't discussed before. I wouldn't use an undefined word like "unencyclopedic" here (or anywhere), since nobody can say what that word actually means. Instead, we have WP:UNDUE and WP:ROUTINE to guide us. I can't find any objective reason to say this addition is routine; it seems to be a bit more significant than that, if only just a bit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis Bratland, Thank you for pointing out the guidelines for the weight that should be provided to certain recalls. Given the hundreds of recalls instituted by automakers, there seems to be not even that small "bit" more significance of these in the overall history and operations of Chrysler. I used the example of a recall contributing to a "change in business strategy" after reviewing references to the recalls mentioned in several WP articles about automakers including Toyota and General Motors. These firms were embroiled in recalls that altered their business operations, and they are dully described. The vast majority of automaker articles do not contain sections or list their recalls --- even if they caused numerous fatalities. For example, the Ford article does not mention any notable recalls, although several have become "textbook" cases such as the Firestone and Ford controversy that not only changed business strategies among the involved firms, but also spawned new Federal safety legislation. CZmarlin (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see Dennis's view that the project page discussion did not set a rigid standard for notability. That said, I think we can also agree that when you consider the ~100 year life of the Chrysler organization, these recent recalls aren't noteworthy.  As a rough guide to notable recalls we could use any number of "top 10 worst recall" type lists.  I'm not suggesting that such lists should be the arbiter of notable recall but if no list has mentioned it then perhaps it's not worth noting.  Recalls for large numbers of cars seem more and more common as I think the NHTSA has become more stringent and more and more cars end up using the same parts (GM ignition recall).  Certainly a recall that ends up before Congress is probably notable but one that just makes it to the auto section of several papers, even national ones, isn't.  Perhaps a few more of the editors who were involved in the project page discussion can weigh in.  Springee (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course our project has a due weight policy WP:DUE. If you have additional criteria to add may I respectfully suggest policy talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. If you think this material should be in the article explain how and why these recalls are going to be notable in 30+ years.  So far we have two editors against, one on the fence and you. Springee (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * May I respectfully ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for the "30+ years" criteria you feel? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A more realistic question is can you respectfully ask. I suspect the answer is no. Springee (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As it stands as of mid-day on March 19, about 20% of all the references in this article - that is an overview of the Chrysler company (its history, products, and worldwide operations) - pertain exclusively to the vehicle recalls during 2014 and 2015. That is far beyond any reasonable measure of WP:WEIGHT and importance to this topic. Contrast this to total lack of mentioning any product recall campaign in the Ford article. Likewise, these is not a word about foot dragging by [Honda]] and other automakers in the massive "killer" airbag recall. Moreover, the information about the Chrysler recalls is designed to overstate the problem and fines. For example, NHTSA imposed $35 million on General Motors for failing to recall cars with faulty ignition switches for a decade, despite knowing there was a problem with the switches, because that amount was the maximum the safety regulator could impose in 2014. As a result, the law was changed by the U.S. Congress. Since then, the largest civil penalty in NHTSA's history was not on Chrysler, but the $200 million imposed on Takata for violating the U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Moreover, in March 2014, Toyota agreed to pay a fine of $1.2 billion for concealing information and misleading the public about the safety issues behind the recalls on Toyota and Lexus vehicles affected by unintended acceleration. The Chrysler recalls are not nearly as notable in comparison. In short, there is WP:UNDUE emphasis for these rather "ordinary" recalls by Chrysler. The entire section is a massive collection of WP:NOTNEWS that is presented in a way that violates WP:IMPARTIAL guidelines. If User:HughD wishes to campaign against automobile recalls, then such information could go into the Product recall article or a separate Automotive recall list that could also link separate articles that include the 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls and the Firestone and Ford tire controversy. Unfortunately, User:HughD has just added a new "Reception" section that attempts to "document" the unsuitability of all Chrysler products - even though only the most recent two years are discussed from among the company's almost 100 year history. That is quite a leap of judgement. CZmarlin (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your collaboration on other articles, regarding neutrality with respect to reliable sources, would be welcome. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By convention on Wikipedia, in historical contexts "largest" is assumed to read "at that time" so that we may avoid asking our readers to read "at that time" everywhere. Thank you for your comments. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear User:HughD, Please note that context matters in an encyclopedia. There is no validity to your claim that WP's convention is to assume that readers will know that "largest" also means as "at the time". The specific guideline for this is spelled out in WP:ASOF. It states that "information that is valid only at a specific moment in history, such as population statistics and current events" must be appropriately tagged with "as of" so that there are no assumptions. Please also recall that "the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines". It is important that contributors "exercise judgement when determining what should be included". Specifically the WP:BALASPS policy, which your edits do not conform, is unambiguous:
 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
 * Your cooperation in keeping to WP guidelines will be appreciated. Thanks, CZmarlin (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ "at the time" added. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The contended content is very obviously due weight; multiple noteworthy highly reliable sources for the contended content include The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Bloomberg Businessweek, the International Business Times, CNN, BBC News, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press. Additional noteworthy highly reliable sources are available upon request. Hugh (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that you claim that you have "done" the corrections to your contributions. Please study the guidelines because they specifically state: "events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" and remove the material that is disproportionate to the overall outline of the history, organization, and products of this automaker. The recalls of 2014 and 2015 are not notable for this article, as are your "reception" additions. WP articles are not a directory or a buyer's guide with product reviews. Moreover, your attempt to claim that other editors are violating the three revert policy and "vandalizing" this article are cynical and mean-spirited. CZmarlin (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As an experienced editor, you well understand coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to a personal evaluation of what topics are important and which are not. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have objected to the inclusion of the "Recalls" and "Reception" subsections, and you have cited policies WP:DUE, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:BALASPS, thank you; however, I believe you are misapplying these policies. May I respectfully ask you, is your interpretation of these policies that a Wikipedia article may include nothing negative, critical, or unflattering about its subject? Outside of the "Recalls" and  "Reception" subsections, might I ask you to please identify one sentence that you might consider critical or unflattering to Chrysler? Re-reading the article, I can't find anything, outside of "Recalls" or "Reception," that a major stockholder or Chrysler executive might take even mild exception to. Is all of reliable sources free of critical opinions or unflattering events in the story of Chrysler? In other words, do you think the article as a whole is neutral with respect to reliable sources? Do you believe the long lifespan of a corporation means that any transitory critical opinions or unflattering events in any one year are to be excluded from our article? What do you think? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC), I would appreciate your thoughts on these questions. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed HughD's BOLD addition of recalls and reception as well as the lead entry. It is clear there is an on going debate about the merit of this material and if it has sufficient weight to be part of this article about Chrysler.  Current consensus is against with only HughD pushing for inclusion.  Given the material is questionable in a subsection it clearly should not go into the lead.  The reception section also is highly questionable since it reflects only a current snapshot of the products.  Wikipedia is encyclopedic, not news.  Rather than continuing a pattern of disruptive editing, the correct next steps if HughD feels this material should be included would be the various content dispute resolution options including RfC, 3rd opinions and noticeboards.  HughD is familiar with all these options and should use them rather than restoring material that is currently 3:1 editors against.     Springee (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" WP:DRNC. Thank you.Hugh (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it's a good thing that wasn't the material was removed. Springee (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Recalls" section blanking
Concerned editors are here asked to please clearly explain, with reference to policy and guideline, how it is remotely possible that, contrary to vast noteworthy reliable sources, Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking about this issue in the talk pages for this article. You seem intent to stretch the "notability" guideline to keep adding recalls that are not significant to the almost 100 year history of this automaker. WP articles are not for news reposting for every event or recall. Similarly, you will notice that only the most significant product recalls are included in articles about other companies. Most auto manufacturers have no mention of recalls, even though their cars have multiple actions involving numerous issues each year. For example, the General Motors WP article includes only the ignition switch, although that company has had many product recalls affecting millions of vehicles. The Toyota article only includes those that involved Congressional Hearings, impacted sales and reputation, as well as cost the company billions of dollars. In other words, just because a recall is covered by multiple media sources they do not mean they should be included in the articles about the automaker. An encyclopedia is not a collection of all information.
 * Moreover, please do not keep adding material under discussion into the article until the issue of your contributions is fully resolved here. Until this is decided to include, on the basis of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER guidelines, your contribution will be removed. CZmarlin (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Recalls" subsection was added to this article in November, 2014 and section blanked without discussion on March 14, 2106. The burden is on concerned editors to defend the section blanking by convincing their colleagues, with specific reference to the due weight policies of our project, that our article should reflect their unique point of view that Chrysler has had no noteworthy recalls. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to directly address this disingenuous claim in particular because the only reason why HughD is here is because he was searching through my edit history. The "blanking" I am accused of was the removal of a two sentence paragraph that was the entire section.  As others on this talk page have said the brake booster recall was not notable enough for inclusion in the article.  Since it was the ONLY item in the recall sub-section, the subsection went with the two sentences.  I assume HughD doesn't support keeping empty sections.  The "no discussion" isn't really true either.  I used a two sentence edit tag to explain why the two sentence paragraph was undue.  I do not believe the article shouldn't have a "recall" section, only that only recalls that are WP:DUE should be included.  Chrysler as an organization is almost 100 years old.  There are literally thousands, likely hundreds of thousands of RS articles about the company. Using a key word search to find ten recent articles doesn't mean they are due for inclusion in the WP article. Springee (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Article content can be edited no matter when the initial content was contributed. This does not change the burden of proof. This does not require proving a negative statement that you have made. In other words, inability to disprove your claim of no noteworthy recalls does not prove that these particular recalls belong in an encyclopedia article that provides an outline of Chrysler's history and major operations. Moreover, all editors are subject to the three revert rule. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * HughD, please stop engaging in edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @CZmarlin and Springee I stumbled upon Ford Pinto being protected due to edit warring and then looked at this article and noticed that it's only semi-protected. Then I looked at the edit history and noticed there have been more edits by HughD since the "please stop engaging in edit warring" message. I know that he has been edit warring with both of you from viewing the edit history of the Chrysler and Ford Pinto articles. Just thought I'd keep you two up to date on these edit wars.--Kevjgav (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @CZmarlin and Springee I just left a message regarding this on the user's talk page using the same words you two have been using.--Kevjgav (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. An edit warring ANI has been opened .  Please feel free to comment there as well as here.  I think it is clear that HughD is warring given that he was continuing to add disputed material while it was being discussed and after it had been removed by two editors.  Springee (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed standard for inclusion
In reviewing the Automotive Project archived discussion on notable recalls I get the impression the discussion was really focused on the notability of recalls as it relates to a particular model. Note the example is the Ford Falcon AU, not Ford Motor Company. In thinking about what level of recall or controversy would be significant enough for inclusion in the main company's article I would propose only including topics which are notable enough to be a stand alone article. That doesn't mean a stand alone article is required but that such an article would withstand an AFD review of notability. For example, the Ford-Firestone tire controversy and recall has a stand alone page and thus I think it would be significant enough for inclusion at Ford Motor Company. The large number of Focus recalls, while covered in mainstream news, would not. When dealing with a topic as large and complex as a major car company it would seem that almost any section of the main article should have enough available content to become a sub-article in and of itself. Springee (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "only including topics which are notable enough to be a stand alone article" Our project has a due weight policy WP:DUE. Summarizing, it is coverage in reliable sources that is determinative, not coverage in other Wikipedia articles; this is fundamental and accepted by all Wikipedia editors. Neutrality with respect to reliable sources is a pillar of our project and is not negotiable. Please take your ideas to policy talk for consideration by the community if you wish. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea. So you want to include material that was covered in just a few articles.  Google shows 3.5 million news stories about Chrysler.  So, if we generously say you have 50 articles, 50/3500000=0.001429% of the article.  I guess we can round that one off to zero.  Thanks for your repetitive suggestion!  Springee (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
The article is not neutral with respect to reliable sources. The article includes no facts or events which might be considered unflattering to Chrysler, although numerous noteworthy unflattering facts and events are manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources. The article includes no opinions on Chrysler or assessments of Chrysler, although numerous noteworthy opinions and assessments are manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources WP:YESPOV.

Colleagues indulging in persistent pointed section blanking are kindly requested to propose alternative summarizations of noteworthy reliable sources.

Safety
"On July 26, 2015, the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time. The NHTSA established an independent monitor on Chrysler. Chrysler agreed to buy back up to 500,000 vehicles with defects which could result in a loss of control by the driver, the largest buy-back in NHTSA history. The head of the NHTSA said in a press release that “Fiat Chrysler’s pattern of poor performance put millions of its customers, and the driving public, at risk.” On December 10, 2015, the NHTSA fined Chrysler $70 million for failure to submit legally required death and injury data."

The neutral level of coverage of Chrysler safety issues and the regulatory response is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:



Recalls
In April 2014, Chrysler recalled brake boosters from 867,795 Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles manufactured in the years 2011-2014 stating that, "A brake booster's center shell may corrode and allow water to get inside, which could freeze and limit the braking ability of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash."

Between 2012 and 2015, Chrysler recalled over 1.8 million US vehicles to address a chronic problem with injuries resulting from inadvertent air bag deployment. On September 10, 2015, Chrysler issued three notices regarding air bag and steering problems that recalled about 1.7 million Ram pick-up trucks. Chrysler said they were aware of two injuries related to a defect in which a short circuit in the steering column deployed an air bag without a crash. Weeks later, Chrysler cited seven injuries in a recall of 316,000 2003 Jeep Liberty and 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees to address the air bag issues. On February 4, 2016, Fiat Chrysler cited "potentially related" minor injuries in an announced recall of about 112,000 2008 and 2009 Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town and Country minivans and 2009 Dodge Journey and Volkswagen Routans, to address a problem with the failure of air bags to deploy in a crash or inadvertent air bag deployment.

In 2015, Chrysler recalled a record 11 million vehicles in 38 different recalls.

The neutral level of coverage of Chrysler recalls is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:



Reception
"Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. In 2015 Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat finished at or near the bottom in the Consumer Reports 2015 Annual Auto Reliability Survey, and in 2016 Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom. All Fiat Chrysler brands finished in the bottom third of Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card, citing 'poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing.' Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of the 2015 J. D. Power and Associates Initial Quality Study."

The neutral level of coverage of reviews, surveys, opinions, reception, and evaluations of Chrysler is not none. The following noteworthy reliable sources, among others, need to summarized in the article to further neutrality:



Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * You have done a partial dump of news stories related to Chrysler vehicles. Nevertheless, these do not prove the "lack of neutrality" in an article about the outline of the history, organization, and products over the almost 100 years of this automaker. The existence of media reports about various recalls does not indicate their weight in the overall background of this company. All automakers have been involved in quality problems and recalls of cars that involve millions of units. A rough measure of the number of news sources that describe them can be shown by conducting a sample using Google News search:
 * "Toyota recalls" = About 38,200 results
 * "Ford recalls" = About 19,000 results
 * "Honda recalls" = About 7,410 results
 * "Chrysler recalls" = About 4,880 results
 * "Mercedes Benz recalls" = About 4,560 results
 * Even though other automakers have done through serious recalls involving major safety problems with numerous fatalities that have even become textbook cases in management and ethics (such as Ford and Honda), these is no mention of them on the Ford or Honda WP articles. In other words, your bias is evident here by placing so much weight to media reports about Chrysler. CZmarlin (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , the very definition of our project's due weight policy is weight relative to media reports WP:DUE. May I respectfully observe that arguments in a content dispute based on the state of other articles are not usually effective on Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF; however, may I remark somewhat off-topic here in this thread on this article talk page that I look forward to collaborating with you and others on improving coverage in our project of the safety and regulatory record, and on opinions, evaluations and reviews, of automakers. As far as the current neutrality of this article, which after persistent section blanking is as of this post lacking safety, "Recall" and "Reception" coverage, may I respectfully ask you to please identify one sentence in the current article which might be read as unflattering or critical of the subject of the article? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC), I would please like your thoughts on this question. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you have cited WP:IMPARTIAL; is it your interpretation of policy that all article content must be neutral? Rephrasing, may a Wikipedia article include noteworthy events or opinions about a subject, even if those events or opinions are negative or unflattering to the subject? Thank you for your reply. Hugh (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , have noteworthy reliable sources had anything to say about Chrysler's reliability? How would you summarize what noteworthy reliable sources have had to say about the quality of Chrysler products? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , has anything noteworthy occurred in the regulatory history of Chrysler? say, a fine, perhaps a record-setting fine; or a buy-back program, perhaps a record-setting buy-back program? How would you summarize what reliable sources have to say about the regulatory history of Chrysler? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , has Chryler had any noteworthy struggles with recalls, perhaps multiple recalls for related issues, say maybe with airbags or other? How would you summarize what reliable sources have to say about Chrysler's recall history? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , may I respectfully ask you to please identify one sentence in the current article which might be read as unflattering or critical of the subject of the article? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with CZmarlin that the way in which HughD is proposing to integrate the material is not UNDUE and not NPOV. Springee (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * CZmarlin, you are confusing HughD's motivations here. HughD is here not because he cares about Chrysler but because I am here.  Here on his talk page HughD states that I have been wikihounding him and says that I have been asked to avoid him .  He is correct that several editors have suggested that we avoid one another.  That was fine with me.  However, rather than avoiding me, HughD looked through my edit history and sought me out at the Ford Pinto article.  When that article was locked and when RfC opinions were not going his way he moved here and reverted my edit to the article.  It wasn't a coincident that the first edit was a reversion of one of my edits.  That his behavior is disruptive and his edits unproductive is not surprising as his block history shows.  I'm sorry he has subjected other editors to this warring that is actually intended for me.  Springee (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , rather than revenge tagging the article and edit warring why not create an RfC discussing the inclusion of the above? Springee (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please join the talk page discussion, thank you! pinging 2016 article editors:, , , , ,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Additional editorial voices regarding the neutrality of this article with respect to reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Where should quality survey type information go in the article
As I said above, I think a good argument can be made for including quality survey information in the Chrysler article. The above RfC is problematic because it asks editors to approve an exact text and doesn't state where it should be added. I'm starting this section to ask where we should add such material in the current article structure. I'm not proposing any text at the moment but I'm presuming that would also be discussed here. I would think the material should live under the "United States sales" subheading. I would leave Fiat brand information out of the discussion and only consider FCA's US brands. Material covering Fiat (and perhaps Ferrari) should be under [Fiat_Chrysler_Automobiles]. Springee (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody said any such thing. The RfC says nothing about "exact text". You made that up. The question was "Should the following content be added to the article?" If there is consensus to add the content, that in no way repeals the basic fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Consensus can change. Any content can and will be improved by subsequent edits. Why on Earth can't editors reach a consensus about adding some content without making any determination about where the content is going to go? As with the silly idea that all content must be perfectly neutral before it can be added to any article, this idea would paralyze collaborative editing. Of course a formal decision can be reached to support taking some action, while leaving the details of how or where undecided. There doesn't need to be a formal directive for how each and every thing must be done.The only thing that is problematic is taking a simple question about adding some stuff on an article -- something people do thousands of times a day -- and over-dramatizing it into some sort of grave, irrevocable, world-altering decision. Possibly due to obsessive Wikihounding of the person who proposed the RfC? I'm not the first editor to suggest that a little personal distance would help the situation, and give a little needed perspective. I don't think I'll be the last. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, rather than messing around with the RfC, I've taken the BOLD step of adding quality information to the article. I'm certain it will not make everyone happy but it's a start.  The length of the material being proposed above was UNDUE.  We should be careful with regards to simply reporting the news sources that simply requote CR and JDP year after year as WP is WP:NOTNEWS.  We also should be careful because there are sources that question the validity of CR and JDP's methods.  That isn't to say that their impact on car buyers isn't real.  However, what ever we want to include it really needs to be encyclopedic.  Please note that for the article edit I used sources from the above RfC.  Ultimately I think we should find some source that has complied or discusses long term trends in quality.  Including, for example, a 2012 article that says CR put Chrysler products below average in 2012 is basically reporting news.  Doing that 20 times is just repeating the news 20 times which doesn't address WP:NOTNEWS.  We need to find a reliable source that describes the long term trend.  Springee (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, once again, WP:NOTNEWS says no such thing. If you were to want to write a new article about each new CR or JDP headline, that would be proscribed by NOTNEWS. But what it says is, "...routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information".Getting back to the article's subject itself, and the public's low estimation of Chrysler's quality, we need to trace the history of Lee Iacocca introducing the industry's first 5 year/50,000 mile warranty as both a way to address the perceived low quality, and a top-down goad to force the company's divisions to improve quality or face expensive warranty repairs. Next Chrysler upped the ante to a 7 year warranty, again, because quality was a driving concern, sometimes real, sometimes only perceived. And then a lifetime warranty. It is a complicated story. Nitpicking about the imperfections of CR or JDP misses the forest for the trees, and is off topic. We have articles on Consumer Reports and JD Power for anyone who wishes to delve deeper into those questions. Your addition is a start but there is much more to be added. Some of it will not reflect well on Chrysler, but that is allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year. A number of sources re-report the information each year.  As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic.  They are subject to the NOTNEWS clause.  If we present 20 years of the material then we have flooded the article with "notnews". If we show the twenty years then say Chrysler has had poor CR results for 20 years that might be OR depending on how the conclusion is stated.  Instead what we should do is find an article or several that talk about the long term quality trends.  Even then we need to be careful about weight given the age of the company and scope of the article.  I think we are at least on the same page that the RfC proposed text doesn't fly as is and we should be seeking more comprehensive sources for this topic.  Springee (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I could cite hundreds of articles that use annual, monthly and even daily data. I could cite many guidelines that encourage adding these sorts of rankings, reports, and ratings, such as WP:PEACOCK. Many GAs and FAs have weather and climate data of this sort. Financial data is published in annual reports, which CZMarlin above said, "Financial data is critical to the firm, its investors, and all other stakeholders such as suppliers, employees, and the communities in which it has operations. The brief financial condition information allows readers to know how viable it is, how it balances profit with costs, as well as how it measures up to other companies." And so on.Where, precisely, in WP:NOTNEWS does it say anything even remotely similar to your claim: "Consumer Reports issues it's ratings every year.  A number of sources re-report the information each year.  As an individual data point the 2014 results are not encyclopedic."? Where does it say that?Here, let's just quote the entire thing:

{{Quote box|

Wikipedia is not a newspaper
As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:


 * 1) Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
 * 2) News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
 * 3) Who's who.  Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Biographies of living persons for more details.)
 * 4) A diary.  Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.}}
 * Exactly where in the above guideline to you see anything that bans mention of Consumer Reports, JD Power and other similar rankings and statistics? It does not say what you claim it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)