Talk:Toyota/Archive 2

"Most Well Engineered"
Someone once again tried to stake the claim that "Lexus is one of the most well engineered cars in the world."
 * Let me back up that statement by reminding our Wikipedians that claiming anything that cannot be backed up with fact or data is known as a fallacy. As true as one might think, it is still an opinion and should be treated like all opinions in our articles - removed.

I deleted that from both this and the Lexus article. This is not "pro-western" to do, its the rules of wikipedia that we can not make partial or prejudiced statements.

Here at Wikipedia all content must be non-subjective, "most well engineered" qualifies as a statement that is POV and not abstracted.

This does not mean that Wikipedia shows pro-west bias. Look at the Lexus Article, it says that two highly regarded institutions, both Consumer Reports and JD Power & Associates ranks Lexus as the most reliable brand out there for some time now. Stating that it is the "most reliable" is not a "mere" thing. However, "most well engineered" is very subjective.

I am sorry if your own prejudices or your inferiority complex prevents you from remaining impartial here one wikipedia, but there are rules to this and making "claims" is not allowed, wikipedia only deals in facts.

On a side note, I feel sorry for you ('you' being the person who was offended earlier by the removal of a similar claim), you are so biased that you believe remaining impartial is pro-west.

There are some really daft design features in every car and the Toyota Prado is of no exception. Anyone who abandons the welltried system of springs in the clutch friction plate for springs in the flywheel knows little about the practicalities of a car. In my 1994 Prado with low mileage this damping system failed, resulting in having to fit a new flywheel with a costs of 10x that of a friction plate. I am not the only one experienced this failure. Toyota with its 264,000 employees should be able to find someone with practical experience in engineering and common sense. Has anyone been left in the African bush miles away from anywhere with lions and other creatures prawling in a VX with a failed engine management computor? An engine is an engine and and emergency arrangement should be provided which cuts out all the electronics and puts the car back to basic. It would make sense. George Corvin Nairobi. Also a bias there, look at the last paragraph...89.100.139.240 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Auto Racing
"While most racing victories go to General Motors and Ford..." Is this a case of 'citation needed' or is it a POV statement which should be re-written? As far as I'm aware, GM and Ford don't share the bulk of racing victories (however those are classed - it may be true in NASCAR, but what about Brazilian F3, Japanese GT racing, DTM etc?) and, even if they did, I'd feel a lot happier if someone could provide evidence. Jimwalrus 11:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Water
"It has been reported that Toyota has created a car that runs on water, but will not sell it to the public, because they wish to support the oil trade that keeps terrorism alive."

Is this correct? I find it hard to believe that a multinational corporation with record number sales in the US would publicly admit to supporting the oil trade because it "keeps terrorism alive".

I do believe the statement on 'keeping terrorism alive' will certainly affect a lot of people fanatics to toyota. It is better to use "It has been reported that Toyota has created a car that runs on water..." and elaborate technological marvel achievements.

It is obvious that none of you are aware of the you are aware the anti-american Japanesse plot. Still bitter about the two atomic bombs, Japan has been planning the US' economic downfall for decades. learn the facts...

What kind of bullshit is this? Everyone knows Japan exports to the US, as is so dependent on the US economy. The whole world is intertwined now...so one goes down, we all go down, the US is too big to fall. Japan is such a small island nation, with its hands tied constitutionally, why is the US so scared of it? I would be watching China.

Toyota is just one of Japan's many pawns. They would like you to think they're here to 'move forward', but Japan's intention is to take out the American auto-industry and then attack the US when they're weak. Revenge for Hiroshima I suppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.131.66 (talk • contribs) 08:42 2006-10-05.
 * The American auto-industry is doing a good enough job taking itself out. Too much union bs to compete, simple as that. amicussTalk 15:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Come now, paranoia and conspiracy theories get us nowhere. There are countless thousands of conspiracy theories in the world, and so far, few have ever come true. And none as outworldly as yours. And furthermore, this is no place for original research. We are here to contribute facts, not speculations and airy statements. Consider this case closed. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Coaster
The Toyota Coaster article didn't exist until now. Can someone please expand the stub? —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-21 08:12Z 

Stake in Daihatsu?
The article says, "Toyota also owns majority stakes in Daihatsu and Hino..." and then, later, "...Toyota combined with its half-owned subsidiary Daihatsu Motor Company..."

How much of Daihatsu does Toyota own? "majority" and "half" seem mutually exclusive.

Sections that shouldn't be here
Having a quick look through the article, can someone please explain to me to purpose of the following sections: - Rugby Team: The section leads to an article about a Japanese Rugby team - Does the team have any direct links to the Corperation? - Names: This section, IMHO, is just this page written as a prose.

Anyway, sorry if I'm being picky - But can someone please explain to me the purpose of these sections. Thanks :-).--Skully Collins 09:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD and neutrality notices
I'm not sure that we really need the AfD notice on the top of this page, given that the AfD was filed in bad faith by a serial vandal. Also, does the "neutrality disputed" template on the article relate to a live dispute about a particular issue within the article, or was that vandalistic as well? Newyorkbrad 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There being no response to this for three weeks, I have removed the old AfD notice as being silly. I ask again whether there is any issue on which the neutrality of this article is still disputed. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was added by User:168.253.13.65, who then made a lot of edits with little use of the preview button on September 7 2006. Compare article as was with the current page with these diffs. Please leave the "cleanup" tag in place though, ha-ha. --DeLarge 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New Vandalism
How does one remove the unhelpful and rather stupid comment in the caption of the image of Kiichiro Toyoda? Someone a real mature jerk! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digilife (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

moved. enochlau (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Toyota Motor Corporation → Toyota — Legal names for companies only need to be added when there is ambiguity (for example, Nike, Inc.). In Toyota's case, there is no ambiguity - Toyota almost always refers to the company that makes the cars. It's why General Motors does not need "Corporation", but Ford Motor Company, given the ambiguity surrounding "Ford", does. There are over 1000 links to Toyota that all refer to the company. "Motor Corporation" in Toyota's case is just unnecessary. Bssc81 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Support - per above. Bssc81 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - When X redirects to Y, and X is the more common name, then Y should be moved to X. --Serge 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - see Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of Japan, where most companies follow this protocol. Nissan and Daihatsu could maybe be nominated for renaming as well. --DeLarge 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:


 * What is the most common usage here? I would think that this is the car brand and not the company.  There are articles for the Lexus brand and for the Scion brand but the Toyota brand is folded into the main company article.  I think that the Toyota brand should be split out into an article at Toyota and this article should be left here.  Vegaswikian 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am attracted by this argument. It seems clear that this move will be made but the article split should then be discussed as a new issue. TerriersFan 03:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

What does this article cover
Per Vegaswikian above, does this article address the company Toyota Motors, the brand of Toyota vehicles, or both? Shawnc 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Toyota Brand
Has anyone else noticed that under brands, the Toyota brand itself isn't there? At the Toyota Academy (mandatory for all employees) they teach us that both Toyota and Lexus are brands of the Toyota company. There's a different logo too for the brand. I'd add it myself but there seems to be a lot of fuss about pro/con edits on this article, so I'd like to get some opinions first.

They also teach us that the Toyota Production System is based on Deming's teachings, the other 2 options weren't mentioned.

Also, I find it very strange that this article is classed 'B' rate. It's non-consitent scattered info. Start class would be better. Ninja neko 07:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not surprising that Toyota would not ack. the other two options, is it? In any case Deming I believe worked on that Army program so they might have figured it didn't matter. I heard the Piggly-Wiggly story myself somewhere. The TPS was developed over time and is fairly comprehensive so I wouldn't be surprised if it had a lot of sources. Ohno & Co deserve a HUGE amount of credit for compiling and sticking to it - and making it into an integrated system - and integrating it into the culture as well. But re what Toyota teaches, they could be (a) simplifying or (b) neatly forgetting what isn't convenient to remember. I noticed that Chrysler's literature doesn't mention the absolute disaster that was the 1957 models - which would directly lead to their failure decades later - or any of dozens of other inconvenient truths. Likewise GM and Ford don't publicly acknowledge having made weapons for Hitler during the war. That said - the Toyota brand is a good point and I added a mini-stub. Davert 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
The opening paragraph to this article does not pertain to enligtenment of any varity. Articles should be nonbiased, and the author obviously has a strong bias against Toyota. And I quote -

"Toyota Motor Corporation or Toyota Jidōsha Kabushiki-gaisha is a greedy, heartless, multinational corporation that produces low quality vehicles. Anyone who buys a Toyota has been brainwashed and needs to exported to Japan themselves, and the world's second largest automaker including sales of its half owned subsidiary Daihatsu, making automobiles, trucks, buses and robots and providing financial services based in Toyota, Aichi, Japan."

This is just disappointing. Many millions depend on reliable content from Wikipedia. The least they deserve for their quest of knowledge is a reputable, nonbiased source. If any visiting this talk page have extensive knowledge of Toyota, please do us a favor and correct this problem. Much thanks in advance,

68.77.46.187 08:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Adam J. Korman
 * The text was added by an anon user on 05:10, January 13, 2007, and was reverted two minutes later on 05:12, January 13, 2007. You must have just opened the page during these two minutes. Sorry, stuff like this just happens --Chris 73 | Talk 11:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo history?
Should there be a mention of the various logos used throughout the years and when the current one was introduced, and what it's supposed to represent?. An excellent example of this is in the Mazda article. Davez621 12:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oceania
I'm just going to mention this:

I found a line under Lexus where it claimed that the Lexus brand was extended to "Europe and Oceana in 1990." Oceana [not sure if I spelled that right] as in the fictional country in George Orwell's 1984. I deleted it, but that's like the fifth time I've found a reference to Oceana as a real country in the past few months. Who's doing that?


 * Oceania is used to refer to Australia, New Zealand and the other countries in that area. See Oceania. --Cavrdg 07:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, so Oceania isn't just being inserted at random. Sorry, I just skimmed the Oceania page to see if maybe it described something real, but it seemed to be describing speculation on the area encompassed by Orwell's Oceania, so... You learn something new every day, I guess.

why is it that idiots like this are alowed to remain on wikipedia. there are so many of them its ridiculus. i recognise tha not every one knows everything but anyone with some brain can either research or recognise when they dont know what they are talking about. i feel that people who dont should be banned to teach them a lesson. he did it 5 times!!59.154.24.147 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've just discovered both the good and bad points about Wikipedia. Any idiot can screw up an article. But there are other people watching the article so they can correct it. Also, don't forget to look at the dates of the messages :)  Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Brands
The section Brands does not list "Hino", which I believe should be. It is brand like Daihatsu is. 89.100.139.240 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Largest automaker
I think we should follow the newspaper's report very closely and they say that when a company is a world's largest automaker, it's by vehicle production and not by revenue at all. "World's largest automaker" is counted by the vehicle production in a year. I think we should measure by vehicle count, and not by revenue since most of these big companies have multiple functions and divisions like financial services (GMAC), toyota financial services etc. So it is misleading. If "automaker" moniker is in there, it's by total vehicle production and nothing else. 168.253.17.38 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya thats why i added it! User:Sparrowman980

It's important to note that Automotive News excluded a Chinese division of GM to award Toyota the #1 spot. That said, if you just go by each manufacurer's count, "Toyota's numbers were actually lower than GM, coming in at 9.366 compared to GM's 9.369, or about 3,000 vehicles fewer." (Detroit News). I'm the one who gave Toyota the #1 spot in Wiki via Automotive News' reckoning, after someone mistakenly gave Toyota the #1 spot because they compared Toy's rounded figures with GM's more precise figures. This will hopefully settle it for 2008 - we can see what happens in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davert (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

bad article
This is a terrible article, very little in the way of facts about the company, just the same rhetoric over and over about quality, fuel economy, and hybrids.

Merge proposal of Toyota Australia into this article
The result was a consensus not to merge. The merge was proposed nine months ago and the last comment was in october, so it's fair to say this discussion has come to a natural close. Thewinchester has a point in noting that Toyota Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary, but the Australian article details a distinct history and product line with a sufficient claim to notability in its own right. Merging into this already lengthy article could not be achieved without the deletion of a reasonable proportion of notable material from Toyota Australia, which would be a net loss to Wikipedia for little apparent gain. Both articles provide sufficient context that they can stand alone, and either is a likely search term for interested readers (ie you cannot assume that readers of Toyota Australia only went there as a breakout from this main page). Finally, while merges are not votes, a clear majority of editors supported retention of the two separate articles. Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A merger of Toyota Australia is being proposed into this article as the company is a wholly owned subsiduary of it's parent Toyota Motor Corporation. There is no need for it to have an article in it's own right and no point is served keeping it this way. Thewinchester (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is to provide more detailed info to those who want/need it. Tri400 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No point in having that merger plus it keeps it more organized!(Sparrowman980 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

it is good for people to know that toyota is not run solely out of japan and does not only suply the US  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tribe Toyota?
Somebody added a huge section talking about a toyota owner's club in Malaysia. Clearly this information should not be in this article. I'll give people a few days to respond if they think the tribe toyota stuff should stay. Other wise I'll go ahead and remove it.The Goat 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Looks like somebody already did it.The Goat 11:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Slogan
The slogan in sweden is "My Toyota is Fantastic", in case it would be interesting for the article..but some one else has to fix it in the article i dont know how.
 * It isn't the primary slogan since multiple years, but still used a lot as rear window streamer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.80.61 (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Largest
I have been looking online and found only one story leading to GM beeing the largest again but i guess we should keep it like this until then!Sparrowman980 18:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See the other two "largest" discussions on this apge.Davert (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
Is there any problem with the factual accuracy?. If no, I am going to delete the message now. --HybridBoy 06:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guiding Principles at Toyota
What the hell is this? This is original research, and clear marketing speech, but I'm too afraid of removing the section, so I'm asking for opinions. Thank you! Victor Antolini 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Toyota philosophy
Can I suggest this section is just removed? Or at the very least placed in some sort of context - does Toyota actually follow through reducing damage to the environment and increasing safety? 82.69.28.55 13:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Toyota
Do you know if the list in the Production Sys is copyrighted? if so we should notify that. -- Andersmusician  VOTE  04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Solara ≠ Supra
I would like to point out that whoever has changed the facts on the vehicle info to say that the Solara is the Supra replacement needs to look at the facts. First of all, the Solara is FWD, based on the Camry chassis, and rarely offered with a manual transmission, while the Supra is RWD, shares a fairly unique inline-6 with only a few other cars, is rarely offered with an automatic, and is much more Celica-based (especially when the Celica was RWD). Second, while the Supra was always made in Japan, the Solara has always been made in North America, either in Canada or alongside the Camry at TMMK in Georgetown, Kentucky. Third, while the Supra was labeled as a Japanese supercar from time to time, the Solara competes with the Honda Accord Coupe and other such cars. I cannot imagine how one could confuse a car with FWD and a V6 producing no more than 230 hp with a RWD sports car that produced 320 stock and could produce much more than that tuned. Eldude611 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Cruiser
Can someone direct me to this or create an article on this? Simply south 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Toyota isn't top automaker for now
In the second quarter of 2007 GM has managed to sell more vehicles than Toyota, giving GM back the title. If someone could change this in the article that would be great. Source: Xtreme racer 13:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * TOYOTA IS THE LARGEST AUTOMAKER IN 2006. READ THAT REFERNENCE. IT IS NOT LARGEST IN 2007. STOP INSERTING BULLSHIT HATEFUL TEXTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.138.238 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In 2007 as a whole, GM sold more vehicles than Toyota by each company's count, but Automotive News pointed out that GM included one company they only have a minority stake in, while Toyota only counts majority stakes. It's not very clear but since Toyota owns part of Isuzu, if we go by GM rules, Toyota's count would also rise and they'd still end up ahead. Can we come back to this in january 2009? Davert (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Split Toyota Motorsports from this
I agree with whoever put the "split" tag. Guroadrunner (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Much better to have the motor sport information in it's own article at Toyota motorsports. I support 71.229.195.124's attempts to split the article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Corporation?
Toyota.co.jp still refers to Toyota as "Toyota Motor Corporation," no articles discuss the name change and the Katakana is still used. Also, there's no source for the name change. I call BS until someone can provide a source.--76.208.172.211 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm changing it back. Apple1976 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)