Talk:Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi Alliance

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Renault-Nissan Alliance → Renault–Nissan Alliance – Per MOS:ENDASH. I'd just do it if it were a descriptive title instead of a proper name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source conflict
With regards to the 2013 total Alliance sales, there appears to be a conflict between the data of two sources. Both sources should be authoritative, but they differ. media.blog.alliance-renault-nissan.com says (at least it did when I checked on Feb 8, 2014): "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,264,821 vehicles," whereas http://media.renault.com says: "The Renault-Nissan Alliance sold a record 8,266,098 vehicles..." Having to pick one, I picked the latter. This goes to show that one can't be too careful with numbers and sources. BsBsBs (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Renault–Nissan Alliance. 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/20150701195902/http://www.knowarabiconline.com/node/74854 to http://www.knowarabiconline.com/node/74854

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 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2017

 * 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 moved. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Renault–Nissan Alliance → Renault–Nissan–Mitsubishi Alliance – Mitsubishi being treated as an equal partner, name is in new logo. Jgera5 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2017 (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.

Conflict over control section
I have various issues with the section. It starts with a nearly verbatim copy of the Reuters commentary on the greater profitability of Nissan (later copied by other sources). Many holdings are less profitable that their subsidiaries, the inference that Nissan being more profitable means in any way that it deserves more rights and is therefore justified is a matter of opinion and should be presented that way. Most of the intrincate detail on the conflict is based in info provided by alleged, unnamed "insiders" and shouldn't be included unless the sources are properly attributed in-text, not written in Wikipedia's voice. The French government denied be pushing for a Nissan-Renault merger at present, the things the media says should be balanced with hard facts. Bias in source should be avoided by editors. Urbanoc (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're seeing some inferences that I don't think are actually there, such as an inference that the more profitable company should have control. Nissan probably wouldn't still exist in its current form without the investment by Renault and Ghosn's subsequent dissolution of its keiretsu, and I think the article as it existed before my edits made that clear and still makes that clear. But Nissan isn't a subsidiary of Renault either, which is what makes this an issue worth noting; a dominant non-majority shareholder still loses control if the other shareholders vote against it, and alliances between independent companies not backed by majority ownership break down all the time. That's reflected in the current market value of the two companies. But such an analysis is outside the scope of an encyclopedia article about the Alliance. Instead, I added this section simply to address the tensions and conflicts within the Alliance that result from its interlocked but non-subsidiary structure. I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal mention that longstanding tense relations between Macron/Renault and Nissan have affected the current post-Ghosn Alliance discussions and clicked to this article to learn about them at a high level -- only to find that this article had no mention of the issue at all. So I pieced together what I could to explain those tense relations (which is basically the "Florange law" story and its aftermath) and added that discussion (also noting current post-Ghosn tensions). The "more profitable company" issue is part of those tensions. However, I'm fine with any improvements that you want to make to the article, as long as it still addresses the conflicts.--AyaK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for taking time for giving a detailed explanation of your intentions and the reasoning behind your edits, I appreciate that. It's not that common here. As I see you would not put objections at any changes I might make for balance (always indicating there is a level of conflict between the two companies as covered by the press, of course), I'll be removing the tags. It will now be on me to address the concerns I have (and, as it seems I'm the only one complaining, I suppose there's no rush to do it). Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't worked in the auto industry since the mid-1990s, so the entire Alliance is after my time. Good to see that there are editors who are on top of it.--AyaK (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)