Talk:Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc.

Settlement section
I cleaned up this section, which had major POV problems. I removed a dubious, uncited statement, and added some quotes (plus a cite) from a joint announcement of the settlement issued by CU & Suzuki. I also added a mention (+ cite) that Suzuki settled 200+ lawsuits re Samurai rollovers.

I see the rest of the article also needs work (more pro-Suzuki POV), but it's late. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Should be better now. I also added a fair-use photo from the CU test. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Consumer's Union video
I added a video of the Consumer's rollover testing of the Samurai. It shows the Samurai was not easy to tip, which Consumer's admitted in the settlement. Note that Suzuki didn't lose this contest. After 8 years of litigation, both parties were exhausted. Its safety record was no worse than any other SUV of the time (Jeep or Bronco, for example). The cite given for the Samurai safety record is hype for a class action law firm, likely not a reliable source since the information cited appears to be opinion, not supported by any other source. Santamoly (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Especially the statements supposedly made by Suzuki found on some ambulance-chaser website (crash-worthy) might should be removed entirely until a more trustworthy reference can be found. I would argue that the fault lies with the physics education provided by the American educational system: a tall, narrow vehicle will roll when cornered as one might a regular passenger car - this cannot really be described as a design flaw but rather as a design consequence.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be correct about that not being a reliable source, and I would recommend asking at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to confirm. However, videos from unknown sources appearing on social networking websites aren't reliable either.  This has been discussed at the noticeboard.  ThatSaved (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The video appears to be a PR effort by Suzuki or its law firm at the time of the lawsuit. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The video is produced by Suzuki and their law firm, as is clearly stated at the end. I reckon that this video is considerably more reliable than the statements at crash-worthy.com, whether or not you agree with its contents. If one stands then both must certainly stand, and both sides should definitely be allowed their say.
 * Fact also remains that the Samurai remained on sale in most European countries until 2003 without any troubles. I reinstated the video with a disclaimer/explanation, and will leave the dubious crash-worthiness bits for now, in an effort to allow both sides to be heard.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The principle of NPOV does require that all majority viewpoints be given acceptably equal attention. However, this does not mean that one possible unreliable source can be countered by another to maintain equal weight.  The reliability of videos on social networking sites is discussed here, and what you, I or anyone one individual reckons is more reliable shouldn't be used as rationale for disregarding the issue raised in said discussion. [] If in fact this is a video produced by Suzuki and their law firm, a link to it on one of their respective web sites should be used.  I would not have a problem with the other citation being removed, although I will repeat the earlier recommendation that the Reliable Sources noticeboard be consulted or questioned for confirmation. ThatSaved (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Postscript. I see that you have followed my recommendeations.  Thanks, I've commented further there.  ThatSaved (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One further question: You removed the video strictly based on it's having been posted on a MySpace page? Because it does seem from your comment that you didn't watch it to the end. I guess someone who cares enough could always shoot a mail to one of those e-mail addresses listed at the end of the video and hope to get a more official looking url.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed it because the source wasn't reliable as confirmed by the discussions on the Reliable Sources message boards. Again, whether or not the video appears legit to you, me, or any one else is not relevant without an acceptable source. Our personal opinion on veracity can't overtake wiki's guidelines.


 * To reitierate, I'm not convinced that a personal injury law firm is a reliable source either, and I've replaced the link to that website with a different one.


 * I'm also not convinced any of this material actually improves the article, but whether or not it SHOULD be included isn't relevant until whether or not it CAN be included is resolved. ThatSaved (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming the video is ruled a RS, it is licensed as what amounts to CC-SA: "Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print." However, the part that the OP hopes to use is the CU videos of its tests, which Suzuki presumably obtained by discovery in its lawsuit. There's no indication (that I saw) that CU has licensed their videos for free distribution beyond that. So there's a possibility of a copyright violation if we use the Suzuki copy of the CU videos. Comments? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Posting a link to said video on an external site is not a copyvio.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Video links#Use: "Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not verifiably uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors should not link to these violations."  Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources noticeboard
There's a current discussion there of both the Suzuki/CU video and the (alleged) internal Suzuki safety documents. Please comment there on the use of these sources. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * PT, there is no discussion of this topic at the link you've provided. I'd like to ask why you have deleted a useful cite and referred to readers to a dead-end?  Can we please keep the discussion here?  I think that sending readers to an off-topic dead-end will derail a useful discussion. Thank you. Santamoly (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They archive things pretty quickly over there. I see the video as useful and relevant, while there is no real doubt about its provenance. Clearly the "problem" that the video is posted on MySpace is nothing but a pretext for removing something that goes against CR's viewpoint. I agree with you that the conversation belongs here, but maybe the question will have to be referred somewhere else - because here we're at an even split.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you look to see if you could find a better source for the Suzuki/CU video? I'm not the one who removed it, and I have no particular objection to using it if it can be better-sourced, and if there's not a copyright issue. But I can see why other editors are uncomfortable with the present source, just as many didn't like the previous source for the CU press-release. And Mr. C, please WP: Assume good faith. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it Pete. I'll also have to ask that we assume good faith here.
 * Wiki's recommendations on videos on social networking is fairly straightforward, and I've seen nothing posted here that would justify an exception in this case. The concerns over possible copyright violations and the ease in which videos could be altered are legit.  The link to the perjoratively characterized 'ambulance chaser' site was removed without incident, even though I don't think the prohibition against such as link is a firmly established as YouTube and MySpace. Also, to reiterate, I'm not convinced yet that ANY of this material improves the article, but I'd like to see some consensus or understanding on what is permitted before addressing the question on what is beneficial ThatSaved (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr.C, how do you conclude that ". . . here we're at an even split" on linking to the video? I don't see any evidence that there is any kind of "even split".  What I do see are several voices agreeing that the video is useful. That is all that is needed.  There is no legal test for usefulness on Wikipedia.  Further, there is no doubt as to copyright, for it says right there in the credits that the video is free for non-commercial use.  Can we sort out these two issues and then move on to including it as a useful link?  PT has also asked for a "better source" for the video.  What, exactly, does "better source" mean?  The video is what is is, and being served from a different server won't change the content, so I don't see why a "better source" would change anything. Santamoly (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think that the video in question is fine as it is, with no copyright issues that I can see. The only non-involved person who commented on the Reliable Sources/Noteboard agreed that the website was not reliable but chose not to take a stand on the video. As far as automatically disallowing Youtube or social networks as sources, I cannot find that in the conversation referenced. The gist of that argument seems to be: WP:RS says explicitly: "How reliable a source is depends on context." Since no one here has suggested that the video is not genuine and unaltered, I think it should be included. Vote?  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The recommendation of the univolved editor was "But the website is definitely not reliable and should be taken out." There's no other means to link to it as of now without including the website. ThatSaved (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A better source would one that meets WP:RS. Objections already have been to linking to a 'class action law firm', presumably on the grounds that self published web sites are not reliable, and a better source was found.  ThatSaved (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Video links - video seems to fulfill everything here.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established."
 * "Along with potential contributory copyright infringement concerns, it also may be difficult to determine if video hosted by sites such as YouTube are modified from the original. Linking to videos on these sites can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." ThatSaved (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What That Saved said.


 * If you feel strongly about including the video, why not write Suzuki and ask permission to use an authorized copy? You should also ask if they have copyright clearance from CU for use of CU's test-video. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ThatSaved quoted the univolved editor as saying: "But the website is definitely not reliable and should be taken out" and then said "There's no other means to link to it as of now without including the website." The website he was referring to in that statement was the class action law firm's website, not the site where the video is posted.
 * I don't know where those quotes are from, so I won't respond to them right now.
 * As for the reliability of the video, I don't see anyone calling that into question.
 * I believe that as part of the Suzuki/CU settlement, Suzuki aren't allowed to talk about this anymore, so I sincerely doubt that they are willing to officially re-release the video.
 * I believe that the video is of importance, in addition to referencing the number of runs CU gave the Samurai it also speaks to why the lawsuit was filed in 1996 (eight years afterwards).
 * Copyrights: the end of the video clearly states that it is available for non-commercial use. Any imaginable copyright issue would be two steps removed from Wikipedia (Suzuki having made the video, anonymous MySpace person having posted it). Santamoly, any comment? I would also reiterate my desire to see a vote on this.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite convinced that the quote refers to the 'class action' law firm's website and that website alone. We can reopen the discussion specifically referencing MySpace to avoid ambiguity if desired.
 * The quotes are from WP:VIDEO which you and Pete Tillman have referenced.
 * WP:VIDEO states the reliability of the video and the uploader must be verified. Even if we assume somewhat generously that the reliability of the video is established simply by the fact that no one has called it into question, the reliability of the uploader, who by you own statement is anonymous, has not.  I would suspect anonymous sources couldn't be verified as reliable, but will research further.
 * Can you indicate at what time in the film the video states it is available for non commercial use? From the section where the film alleges Consumer Reports bragged about wiping out a popular SUV until the end, I see contact information but no copyright, and nothing is audible. Let me emphasize that this is one issue among others that would need to be satisfied for inclusion.
 * Can you demonstrate that the means for determining the reliability of a source is by means of a vote? I'd like to think we're following Wiki procedure when determining inclusion. ThatSaved (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One final issue. If Suzuki is in fact not allowed to talk about this anymore, and is reluctant to officially re-issue the video, then it may no longer be available for non-commercial use.  ThatSaved (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any doubt that User:Silver seren's statement referred to the class action law firm. Here's a link: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77. We could always ask the editor in question.


 * The only reference in the video to copyright is actually in the opening credits (my bad), where it states "permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print" - dunno how that applies.
 * WP:VIDEO does not contain those quotes (it's about uploading videos to the commons). I have only referenced Video linksVideo links, and cannot find the quotes there either.
 * In any case, I don't see any chance of resolution here without some outside input, and will request such. Best,  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃   (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first quote appears in the first paragraph third line of Video links. The second appears in the first paragraph, third line of the section headed "Use" of Video links. I mistakenly thought WP:VIDEO was shorthand for this, however it directs to a different page. The request for comments is welcome and should give this issue final resolution. ThatSaved (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

An issue has arisen over the inclusion of a video explaining Suzuki's side of a lawsuit (seemingly made by Suzuki's American headquarters) that has been posted on a MySpace video page. There is a long (likely boring) discussion above.  ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃  (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr C, this discussion is definitely not boring! The video is extremely rare and topical.  It was made by BOTH the protagonists (CR filmed it, and Suzuki assembled it).  There doesn't appear to be any other copies in circulation. It's right on topic for this WP article, and it was released for non-commercial use by its maker. It's a fine piece of evidence with an extraordinary level of fact & detail not otherwise available.  The fact that Suzuki & CR agreed to end their quarrel doesn't mean that we must ignore this excellent film.  It's as rare & priceless as the famous film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. Are we going to sit by while others nit-pick this film into oblivion?  I hope not.  We're not actually uploading the video to the commons, all we're asking for is an OK to link to the video as a reference. Santamoly (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I left a note at the uninvolved editor's talk page, asking him/her to resolve their ambiguous comment here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My statement on RSN about non-reliability was in reference to the Crashworthiness website, as I abstained from commenting on the video. However, I will say that, as long as it can be verified that the video is reliable and is not copyrighted, and the copy of it on Myspace is the only known available copy, then I would say use it for now, but stay on the lookout for a copy elsewhere as well. If it is the only available source, then we should use it, but we should always be searching for other sources that are more reliable toward the information. Silver  seren C 21:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The original host of the video at MySpace has closed up shop and the video was deleted. Fortunately, it recently surfaced in 6 parts on YouTube. YouTube has file size limits, so the video had to be segmented since it's quite long. I'm hoping the links can stay here for the historical record, until such time as we can agree to include the links in the article. Santamoly (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6_1o_FxsNs&feature=related
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Xq4kH8gNM&feature=related
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui9oAeXniqg&feature=related
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFGKSv_kSCE&feature=related
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lahZdF4xlg&feature=related
 * Suzuki versus Consumer Reports Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28naW1ANrTM&feature=related
 * It would definitely be useful to establish that the Suzuki video was part of the court record of the Suzuki v Consumer Reports trial, and is therefore in the public domain. Is anyone here skilled at digging up that kind of information? Then we could save the video to Wikimedia where, hopefully, it would be safe until the end of time. Santamoly (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The main issue for me has always been whether or not the video contents may be used as a reference. After all, it is the best source I can find for Suzuki's allegations about the number of runs it took to flip the Samurai and also the reasoning as to why the lawsuit occurred with an eight year delay. Unless someone can prove that this video is a fake, I am of the opinion that it should be available to be quoted for the article. Whether or not it should be directly linked in the "external links" section is conceivably still open to dispute. Best,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll refer you again to WP:Video_links, which states "Linking to such sites (as YouTube) is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern. Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established if the link is used as a source."
 * There was never any trial in the case of Suzuki v Consumers Union. The two sides filed a joint motion for dismissal before the trial began, somewhat ironic since Suzuki had earlier won court rulings allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The court granted the dismissal, which meant there was no trial. Even if the were entered into evidence, what makes you think that surrends any copyright claim? ThatSaved (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not link to the video, just quote it. This means copyright and youtube are irrelevant. As for copyright and use of the video, this was already dealt with by outside commentator [User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] who didn't se any problem with linking to it when it was posted on MySpace. While linking to youtube is "discouraged", it is acceptable under certain conditions.


 * But again, all I am saying is that I insist on reinstating some of Suzuki's allegations of the time, and referencing this video as it is the only source I have been able to find.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as the link above states, those conditions include among other things establishing the reliability of the uploader and the video. An official Suzuki channel would be acceptable, an anonymous user most likely not.  However, since you're not currently asking to insert the video link itself, why don't you propose on this page the text you wish to place in the article, and interested parties can comment on it until we reach a consesus?  My instinct is additional text would be acceptable as long as it doesn't violate undue weight and it mentions that these are Suzuki allegations.  Give me a few days to comment however, taking a short Wikibreak.  ThatSaved (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ThatSaved, it would be helpful if you maintained a User Talk Page so we could post inter-user blather there instead of here. Anyway, the poster of the Suzuki videos to YouTube has recently replied to a query that he downloaded the video from Suzuki America before the dispute was settled.  After the settlement in 2004, the video was no longer made available.  Regardless, the video states clearly at the end that it's free of any copy restrictions for non-commercial use. Santamoly (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can get to my talk page by clicking on the word 'talk' in parens after my name. My signature is similar to others on this page.   I viewed the video again but don't see the disclaimer you mention.  ThatSaved (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 15 seconds into the video (or "Part 1" of same) is the statement:""Permission is granted to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print". It's not a disclaimer of anything, it's permission to use. Santamoly (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so it's a the beginning and not the end. 'Permission to use excerpts for commercial broadcast or print' is very different from being 'free of any copy restrictions for non-commercial use'.  I suggest asking at the correct noticeboard whether your intended use would qualify.  ThatSaved (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll bite. What would you find acceptable as a "correct noticeboard"? Santamoly (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiPedia:Media Copyright Questions is "a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions." ThatSaved (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Asking the question at WikiPedia:Media Copyright Questions produced the following reply "You can link to YouTube videos as long the link is appropriate for the article . . . as long as the clip has not been uploaded in violation of a copyright. For more information, see Wikipedia:YOUTUBE". Wikipedia:YOUTUBE then says, inter alia: "Links to consider: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thus, under this criterion, the YouTube videos under discussion may be included as links.  Since there seems to be adequate support for including links to the videos (albeit not in the text of the article), and the WP:Media Copyright Questions indicates that we're OK linking to the videos, I'd like to suggest including reference to the links in the article. Santamoly (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The reply you received doesn't answer the question you asked, namely whether or not the disclaimer at the beginning of indicates that what was uploaded is not a copyright violation. I've replied to see if we can get an answer to this question, or if it needs to be asked elsewhere.


 * In the meantime, you are within your editing rights to insert the links into the article, if you genuinely feel that you have satisfied all criteria and have enough backing to proceed. I'll only note on this page that what you've quoted is not WP:YOUTUBE but WP:ELMAYBE, which means such a link can be CONSIDERED for inclusion, and that I won't include myself as part of the consensus that elected to include the links. Other than that, I don't see any value in repeating the objections I've stated above.  ThatSaved (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use photo of tipover
Editor SchuminWeb removed this photo, commenting "rm AP photo for failing WP:NFCC#2 as a press agency photograph, and WP:NFCC#8 because the photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary."

The photo is of the CU driving test that is the subject of the article and lawsuit, and is discussed at some length in the article. The photo significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (NFCC#8)

NFCC #2 calls for respect for commercial opportunities. Fair Use of this low-resolution copy of a wire-service photo would not replace the original market role of the original AP photo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see this deletion request to discuss the Fair Use of this photo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's the source of the AP photo, in case it is deleted. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion as fact?
"In the end, the negative publicity caused the early withdrawal of the Suzuki Samurai from the North American markets." This statement is opinion to me. 1996 safety and emissions standards would have forced a major redesign of the Samurai, one that would not have been economic in light of the small market, which was due in part to the unfavorable press from CU, but also due to the much stronger competition by 1996. VaderSS (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Worse, the statement isn't even sourced. I'll try fixing it in a day or three, if no one else gets to it. Better yet -- Y.O.U.  ;-)  -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)