Talk:Fiat/Archive 1

Role of this article
Is this article for Fiat branded cars of what?? Company that produces Fiats is Fiat Automobiles Spa as the article title suggest, but this article has general info of Fiat Group cars, which belongs to main Fiat page--&mdash; Typ932 T  11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fix it again Tony
This section is sourced and appropriate. I have now rewritten it to be more balanced. As a widely used meme I see no reason for its removal. The way forward is to add more balancing material if appropriate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No the section is completely inappropriate. Just because a joke has a some references does not make it relevant! Shall we add the slang "Fix Or Repair Daily" as this can be sourced? No. Old Jokes are not relevant information and can be seen as offensive to the Company. Also, the joke is used in North America so its not "widely used". That would mean worldwide. G87 (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a joke; it is a well sourced, frequently used term. It is used across the world; eg New Zealand[ and UK. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its an old American joke used to attack the Fiat Company. This is not relevant information to be on Wiki.G87 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is VERY relevant to regard the company's record of reliability, not just in Europe over the past ten years but worldwide over the history of Fiat. Sorry, cherry picking the praises without mentioning the criticisms is a violation of WP:NPOV. Not mentioning Fiat's tribulations in North America a quarter century ago and implying that Fiat had no production (or sales) setbacks in the meantime is just as abhorrent as spreading false rumors attacking the company in the first place. A suggestion: you won't win your point by just digging in your heels. Use this information to your advantage and write the complete article that the company deserves and not just a glorified advertisement that exists when the awards are trumpeted in the top section.147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a silly old joke VERY relevant??? Are you insane? I strongly believe your including this American Joke on here to promote hate against the FIAT Company. Its not relevant to Europe or the rest of the world for that matter and should NOT be included as part of the encyclopedia under Fiat Automobiles. I don't think its right to include such unhumorous, negative jokes in whats meant to be an informative encyclopedia. As the joke uses the "FIAT" name it can also be considered as offensive to the Company. These jokes should not be promoted on here and should be removed if included. I cannot understand how anyone can feel so strongly about the importance of a silly joke being presented here. G87 (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not feeling strongly at all regarding the "joke" - I was not the one reacting emotionally to the redirect or the inclusion of anything that could be viewed as negative in terms of Fiat. You and two other editors (one of whom posting just below this entry) are. Note that the actual point is not the backronym (thanks, Bridgeplayer - I wasn't aware of the term until it was used in a discussion), but what prompted its popularity within the American automobile industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By targeting on what you see as an insult, you've missed the bigger picture that NEEDS to be presented here: it wasn't just a "joke" - some would call it a "nickname" which appears in almost every field, actually - but a symptom of the problems the Fiat had in that period of time. Ignoring it while trumpeting awards does the Wikipedia readers a disservice (if you've checked the comments of Bridgeplayer, B.Wind, yours truly, and others not just here but also at RfD, you'll notice a consistency in the message) - the article needs to be balanced, and whether or not the mention of the backronym is there, you have a severe POV problem in the article's presentation that needs to be addressed. Regarding your last point: if you ask someone who is an executive at Fiat if it (the backronym) makes any difference to them, chances are that he or she would say "no." It's a minor part of Fiat's history: it survived the last quarter century since their previous venture into North America, and the company itself won't care because it doesn't matter to them - it's "old news." They are far less affected by this than some editors who have taken this extremely personally. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing when you say people are taking this "extremely personally". Its not personal in any way. Im simply saying people are promoting hate out of their own interest. Such jokes are just NOT relevant and are in fact rediculous. Fiat's past reputation in America can be described without the inclusion and promotion of the Joke. You are promoting hate against the brand by including the slang term here with its own redirect and you know it! Also, like you said, if its "a MINOR part of Fiat's history" it should NOT be promoted with its own heading and redirect. G87 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I repeat what was said earlier in at least two discussions: put it in context and you will have a better article than right now. I agree that there is no need for a separate section dedicated to the backronym (instead, it should focus on Fiat's automobile history - good and bad). There is no hate here despite you inflammatory accusation of our supposedly promoting it. Write the appropriate section with only a brief mention of Fiat's reputation in North America in the 1970s and 1980s, then build around it to put everything in perspective. That would be a positive step that is so badly needed here. Now, was I right in assuming that you wish to have an improved article, or shall we keep beating a dead horse? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is many other car companies which needs more this kind of critisims than Fiat, do you know the industry so good you think?--Typ932 T&middot;C 06:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * State it objectively and there will be no problem. In fact, it will improve Wikipedia as we are supposed to present a neutral point of view by policy. Simply reporting the awards without context and ignoring the negatives is a clear violation of the WP:NPOV policy. By your reasoning, we should delete such mentions of Unsafe at Any Speed and the exploding Ford Pintos, for example. This is not a fansite: criticism and analysis are vital for the objective study of every subject we present. To offer less would be criminal. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess what, G87 - "Fix or Repair Daily" is covered and cited in Backronym (as is "Fix It Again Tony," for that matter). If it's documented/cited in an objectively written article, it's an appropriate redirect. Second, the current article has been tagged for a year as being in need for expansion... especially since it is completely lacking in historical detail and similarly lacking in objectivity. This is not an article about awards (yet the awards section tops the display): it's about the company itself. In light of recent events dealing with Chrysler (I'm sure you must admit that the Chrysler bankruptcy and partnership with Fiat is most significant on both sides of the Atlantic and as such, an exposition about it should be included in this article), the company's ill-fated first foray in America should also be mentioned and put into appropriate historical context. This includes the backronym. Look at my posts - I've been urging you or the two other editors who have been in an edit war about this redirect simply to write the section to put this into proper perspective. Instead of holding your ground, a superior article can arise by putting the historical pieces together. Note also that, in the context of RfD WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion: simply couch the information in the most appropriate light to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Simply listing awards without objectively giving the complete historical picture is every bit a violation as converting the article into a complete attack essay. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess what, B.Wind - you are promoting hate by including such terms on here. There is no need to make a big deal out of this Joke by having its own redirect and heading. The joke is irrelevant and should NOT be promoted in such a way. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT G87 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An inflammatory statement like that borders on violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. He did not make a big deal of this. Neither did Bridgeplayer. Neither did I or anybody else who suggested that Wikipedia keep the redirect. We did not act emotionally. You (and the other two editors) did, one calling this a "flamefest" and the other stating in a post that he was prepared to take a WP:3RR "rest" and "have some beer." I repeat what two other editors have suggested if you truly want the contretemps to end: finish writing the article to provide an objective, balanced light on the history of the company and tone down the positives until you can put them all in context. Despite the apparent anger that I see in your posts, I do believe that we agree that we want this article improved. Here's your chance... improve it.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im with G87 with this case, its not appropriate to add acronym jokes, but well source ciriticism and also otherway around ast last years Fiat has got good rewies with good quality cars need to be written, such sections or headers as Fix it again Tony really are not needed, secondly if you take good eye on this, this Fiat Automobiles is new company and has no so long history, its founded 2007...and there is much more important history (over 100 years) needed here than this acronym , I think this is just one or two editors war against the brand, because the only contribution to the brand is only just this they find amusing in some magzine. Anyway this info alone is not appropriate here. The Backronym article says it straight its also there in jokes, I think this is encyclopedia not joke book. This is not vey NPOV view to add jokes like this  --Typ932 T&middot;C 06:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with user Typ932 jokes should not be promoted in this way. G87 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's starting to look better, thanks in no small part to Bridgeplayer. Now the backronym isn't the primary focus of the section but still significant enough that it should be mentioned. The statistics certainly help here. There's more to do for the entire article, but it's closer to NPOV than it was two days ago. More can be added, of course, but at least it's headed in the right direction. User:Typ932 mentioned that Fiat Automobiles is a new division of Fiat, and that needs to be mentioned somewhere as well (see Chrysler for something similar). The same is true for Fiat brands sold in other parts of the world. When you have the "highest of the highs" and the "lowest of the lows" with nothing else in between, the effect to the reader can be devastating. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the formation of 'Fiat Automobiles' to the lead. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dale Gribble uses the "Fix it again tony" thing in King of the Hill. KingRaven (&gt;$.$)&gt; (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not belong here.


 * In fact, comments using the Fiat name to stand for "Fix it Again Tony" were probably a take off on the earlier statement that Ford stood for "Fix or repair daily." Take this out of this article!  Put in the Backronym Article if it is to be in here anywhere.


 * Curiously, the phrase "Fix or repair daily" only appears in Wikipedia as a Backronym and it does not appear in the Ford article. Well sourced or not, why is it appropriate to put this bad joke in the Fiat Article and not put one in the Ford Article?


 * What about the following easily sourced car Backronyms which prove that these brands are unreliable.


 * CHEVROLET: Can Hear Every Valve Rattle On Long Extended Trips


 * MITSUBISHI: Mostly In The Shop Undergoing Big Investments, Sometimes Half Incomplete


 * MOPAR: Mostly Old Parts And Rust


 * NISSAN: Needs Imminent Salvage So Abandon Now


 * CHRYSLER: Company Has Recommended You Start Learning Engine Repair


 * DODGE: Drips Oil, Drops Grease Everywhere


 * SAAB: Start Adding Additional Brakefluid


 * SUBARU: Screwed Up Beyond All Repair Usually


 * FORD: Fails On Race Day


 * JAGUAR: Junk Always Going Under At Repair Shop


 * JEEP: Junk Engineering Executed Poorly


 * LOTUS: Lots Of Trouble, Usually Serious


 * MERCEDES: Many Expensive Repairs Can Eventually Discourage Extra Sales


 * MGB: Might Go Backwards


 * TOYOTA: The One You Ought To Avoid


 * TRIUMPH: Tried Repairing It Until My Parts Hurt


 * - Komowkwa (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think You are free to add those jokes to other car articles aswell, if they are properly sourced, you are also free to edit these, and wait what happens.... "Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). "  -- >Typ932 T·C 07:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced comments
It would be helpful to the development of this page if editors would kindly desist from the removal of sourced content such as here. If it is considered that sourced text is inappropriate then it should be brought here, first, please. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article is incredibly brief
How does one of the world's oldest car companies have such a short weak article? Where is the history of the marque? There are companies born yesterday with articles ten times as long. This article does not do the company justice. Dino246 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This page certainly needs expansion but, bear in mind, it is a subsidiary page of Fiat, where much of what you are seeking is located. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Model list needs rework or removal
This article looks promising but needs some work. The main issue is the "current models" list. As it sits it's completely illegible, with images on both sides of the page and text shifting around all over the place. If I were browsing the internet and came across this article, I don't think I'd bother reading through it.

There is List of Fiat models since 1899 which could be a better place for this. Thoughts? --Sable232 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

History section
How is it that a company that has been making automobiles for more than a century does not have a history section? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fiat Automobiles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130518055943/http://blog.hemmings.com:80/index.php/2009/06/08/inside-the-poughkeepsie-fiat-factory/ to http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/06/08/inside-the-poughkeepsie-fiat-factory/

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 04:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Fiat
In my opinion, Fiat should lead to Fiat (disambiguation). --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 01:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Fiat Automobiles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825141942/http://www.acea.be/collection/statistics to http://www.acea.be/collection/statistics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831075512/http://www.quattroruote.it:80/news/articolo.cfm?codice=198388 to http://www.quattroruote.it/news/articolo.cfm?codice=198388
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222160107/http://www.autoracingdaily.com:80/news/other-motorsports/fiat-bugster-a-plug-in-electric-car/ to http://www.autoracingdaily.com/news/other-motorsports/fiat-bugster-a-plug-in-electric-car/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030165726/http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/fiat-500e-most-efficient-electric-car-usa to http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/green-cars/fiat-500e-most-efficient-electric-car-usa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611130620/http://www.fiat.co.uk:80/about-fiat/fiat-motorsports/rally-championship/?id=7690 to http://www.fiat.co.uk/about-fiat/fiat-motorsports/rally-championship/?id=7690
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322232239/http://motortorque.askaprice.com:80/news/auto-0803/fiat-opens-new-flagship-store-in-west-london.asp to http://motortorque.askaprice.com/news/auto-0803/fiat-opens-new-flagship-store-in-west-london.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

History section is in the wrong page
Fiat S.p.A. and Fiat Automobiles are two different manufacters; Fiat spa was founded in 2011 (https://www.google.it/search?q=fiat+spa+1+gennaio+2011&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=IobKWbbFD4jA8ge3lZmACw) while Fiat Automobiles in 1899, but Fiat spa history section said that it was founded in 1899; the page is wrong! The section must be moved in the Fiat A. page. --Howard "Dib" Montjio, 26 september 2017
 * Fiat Automobiles is founded in 2014 -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fix it again Tony - round 2
There has been some edit warring about whether FIAT was popularly known as "Fix It Again Tony" when it left the US market in 1983. I generally prefer that these types of remarks are left out of WP articles because almost all brands have similar derogatory acronyms (see above section) and they are not particularly helpful to anybody. I'm slightly more inclined to leave it in for this article but only because it seems that FIAT had such a bad reputation in the US at the time that the derogatory joke was seen as being true. Mind you, I'd want more than a single reference to back it up that this is what most American buyers thought and not just a minority. Thoughts.  Stepho  talk 03:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Stepho. The comment should remain if it was a significant quote at the time as it tends to show that Fiat had reliability issues at such a level that had filtered down to average car buying public. There may need to be some exploration of its etymology NealeFamily (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely should be removed wikipedia is not joke book, if we add one then we should add those jokes to other manufacturers also, Im sure we can find references to them. I think this case is discusses around 5 times in past in wp:automobiles for example  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_22 . Wikipedia is not joke book or consumer guide, of course quality etc problems can be mentioned in generally but these jokes are too much, seems to be just attack not encyclopedic tone, if we start adding those here is good starting point, for example FORD  Fix Or Repair Daily  is widely used and its easy to find good references to it.  https://jalopnik.com/5879789/the-definitive-guide-to-derogatory-auto-acronyms  , btw this discussion should be in wp:autombiles not here because this concerns other manufacturers also -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In THIS PARTICULAR CASE I think that the way that the text is integrated and relevant to the overall paragraph in which it appears, and the fact that it contributes to (and strengthens) a perfectly serious point about the reputation that Fiats suffered in the Angloshpere in the 1970s (a decade when corrosion was a particularly major problem for many mainstream manufacturers, but Fiat/Lancia were still seen as particularly dire cases) the case is made for keeping the reference to the quip.  But that is NOT a precedent that says any old joke will do in any entry about cars when discussing unreliability (1950s Borgwards, 1960s Vauxhalls and British-built cars more generally) or indeed the opposite (Volkswagen, Volvo ...).   You have to judge each individual case on its individual merits.
 * The Ford example would be an interesting one to test.  But here we are discussing the Fiat example.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an option on this discussion, however I would like to ask why the North America section contains "The company name Fiat was sometimes used as a jocular backronym for 'Fix it again Tony', referring to poor reliability and problems" and "Fiat left the United States car market with a reputation for poor quality cars in North America. As a matter of fact, a running joke derisively stated that the initials F.I.A.T. stood for "Fix It Again Tony"" this seems redundant. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Include it once. I am a Fiat fan, but this is definitely relevant and emblematic of Fiat's US reputation at the time. Charles01 said all that needs to be said above.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dont you understand its joke, and wikipedia isnt jokebook. French cars left also from US and there is no jokes or that for example Audi was total garbage in 80s and no jokes there, BMW is nowadays unreliable and no jokes there either the list it endless, why would one auto brand need joke and others dont??  Mazda and Mercedes and Ford had also really serious corrosion problems in early 2000s and they dont have acronym jokes either -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ExcludeI agree with the comments above, Definitely should be removed wikipedia is not joke book. there also several Companies that had problems with reliability like Volkswagen, Volvo and others .LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude as long as the entire context and explanation for "Fix it again..." is nothing more than a single sentence That's it? Not nearly enough.I see editors here saying the Fiat quality problems were exceptional and that makes this a unique case. (Unlike "Chevy Nova means no va -- doesn't go -- in Spanish, or "The Parts Falling Off This Car Are Of Finest British Quality"). You keep teasing this story about how Fiat had a special place in the automotive hall of shame, but then you don't tell me that story. I'm excited to hear all about it. Telling me this (lame, somewhat racist dad joke) acronym is extremely uninformative. "Fiat cars were sooooo unreliable they said Fiat stands for fix it again Tony!" womp wompThere were specific reasons why Edward Turner chose not to invest anything in fixing the oil leaks on Triumph motorcycles in the 1960s. They were already selling every bike they could make in their quaint, antiquated workshops, and he believed the market was saturated. Turner toured Japan and said the staggeringly large-capacity factory Honda was building at Suzuka was a huge mistake, and MITI thought Turner was right. Honda knew that but they believed they could make the saturated market several times larger by selling to a whole different demographic with the Honda Super Cub and their You meet the nicest people on a Honda campaign. Etc. It's an interesting story, and it shows people with some intelligence making decisions for reasons. Not some simple minded "durrr, Italians are stupid. Fiat sucks" nonsense.Manual of Style/Trivia sections says pretty much the same thing. We don't have a rule against mentioning which model of car James Bond drove in each movie or where the name 'Edsel' comes from, but just sticking trival facts into an article without context is lazy and unhelpful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Typ932's Wikipedia is not a joke book or Dennis Bratland's You keep teasing this story about how Fiat had a special place in the automotive hall of shame, but then you don't tell me that story. I think that User:Stepho-wrs summed up my position in his the opening statements I generally prefer that these types of remarks are left out of WP articles because almost all brands have similar derogatory acronyms (see above section) and they are not particularly helpful to anybody. I'm slightly more inclined to leave it in for this article but only because it seems that FIAT had such a bad reputation in the US at the time that the derogatory joke was seen as being true. Mind you, I'd want more than a single reference to back it up that this is what most American buyers thought and not just a minority. Fiat, in New Zealand at that time, suffered from a similar bad reputation, particularly for rust and poor mechanical reliability. I think that the acronym expresses the sentiment of the public at that time and is therefore useful in its context for the casual reader. Additional referencing to address the "most" American buyers aspect needs adding. I would not like to see these acronyms used generally and fully endorse Typ932's comment in that aspect. NealeFamily (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude –The problem is why we need acronym joke to tell facts, isnt it enough to explain things in encyclopedic way, what that joke gives more to the article? IMO ist just blatant attack towards one auto maker. As said every brand has had problems, even Jap cars were total crap in past, and they rusted still after Fiat rust problems were fixed and in that time all brands rusted. Fiat is no exceptional brand, French cars were even worse in reilaibility point of view. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude – Every company has its problems and furious customers, especially over a 100 year history. What's next? "It's Been Malfunctioning" at IBM and "Such a Bad Experience, Never Again" at SABENA? Not a notable joke. — JFG talk 10:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude Perhaps there is a place for an article about these sorts of names (Found On Road Dead) but we need RSs to anchor such an article.  It would probably need to be a source or two about the concept rather than a list of such names.  This sort of information in general isn't encyclopedic, has basically no significant impact on the article subject and thus would have basically no weight in context of the article subject.  Springee (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude WP's coverage of subjects is broader, so a narrow, auto industry-specific disparagement is inappropriate. If there was a link to a "FIAT joke" page, that could serve the mooted purpose without getting OT. Moreover, if it's done here, it's precedent for every similar comment about every other brand, & that invites "brand war" editing & (IMO) likely edit warring. Head it off here. Coverage of why quality was bad, per Dennis Bratland's remarks above, is another matter, & that I would heartily endorse adding.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  18:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because there are four significant reliable sources all citing this quote in the context of FIAT reentering the US market and stating that it is having to overcome this "Fix it again Tony" acronym. To remove it is diminish the value of the article. The acronym in the context here has nothing to do with an unrelated random joke as some of you are suggesting, but is a more in the context of a quote. There are a significant number of articles throughout Wikipedia which contain quotes that were originally a joke or witty retort when made but now, because of context, these are cited. NealeFamily (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As said references or not (cited or not), this joke gives nothing value to article, if we allow this one all other makes will get also these acronyms (these can be cited also with reliable scources). "To remove it is diminish the value of the article"  lol Fiat value is fix it tony again lol, if we remove it the value of article will increase, now its like comic story and cant be taken seriously at all. All things can be written without any jokes in this article, old joke doesnt give it any value, its opposite. "acronym in the context here has nothing to do with an unrelated random joke as some of you are suggesting" really? its the same acronym, its clearly same old boring joke  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that we all agree that all the major brands have similar derogatory acronyms and that in most cases they are not encyclopedic. The question here is whether FIAT's derogatory acronym is deserved - ie was FIAT well-known to be particularly bad in relation to its time and its peers in the US. Without proof of a really, really bad public reputation then our use of derogatory labels could be considered defamation. See WP:LIBEL.  Stepho  talk 21:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I endorse Stepho's comments. It is not sufficient that an acronym exists. What needs to be established is its credibility through reliable sources. In this case there are a number of such sources. Most of the acronyms cited in the first round of this debate would not reach that standard and are as Stepho suggests potentially defamatory. NealeFamily (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is universal support for fully exploring the facts behind Fiat's reputation. Regardless of this one sticking point, anyone who wants to make sure readers are fully aware that Fiat had image problems has a green light to give that topic full coverage. Why not go ahead and do that? Once it's done, the need to mention "fix it again..." becomes almost moot, or else much of the opposition evaporates, since it will no longer lack context. I'd forge ahead where there is common ground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me Dennis - if everyone is ok with that approach then lets see what can be done. NealeFamily (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)