Talk:Toyota Prius/Archive 2

Fictional Appearances
Are not most of the entries in this section paid product placements? Is television advertising notable enough to warrant such attention in a WP article? I think this section should be removed, or at least shortened to a few sentences, or at least the most notable examples (ie were the Prius was integral to the plot). Ashmoo 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Early on when Hybrids were hard to spot, this was worthwhile, but now that its matured, this best belongs on an enthusiast site somewhere.Nerfer 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New York Times today has a good article entirely about the Prius's appearance or nonappearance in movies and how even this is also a political issue: A Casting Call for Sexy Cars (Hybrids Need Not Apply) --JWB (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I deleted ambiguous statement involving "maybe" and "easily" in the sentence related to life cycle emission. Instead attached a link to a PDF file. Please read it before attempting to modify the sentence.

I deleted the part saying alternative fuel vehicles "are still in the experimental stages". E85 and bio-diesel are not in experimental stages, so this sentence is wrong.

Added referenced to plug-in electric hybrid vehicle, instead of ambiguous explanation. Lifetime 04:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) its driven by tools who think they make a difference

Hi, folks! I've removed the criticism section, as no references are made about the facts being contraversial. It seems to be POV, and also seems to have been writen by someone who hates the Prius.Hondasaregood 04:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have overdone it. You have removed a lot more than what are contraversial. Besides, the original text has included many links of where the info come from.  The article was only reporting the existence of these criticisms elsewhere.  Honestly, can you really find any criticism that are NPOV?  All criticism by definition is POV.  Kowloonese 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled across this page, and was about to put in a Criticisms or Controversies section. If one already existed, should we resurrect that?  It's only fair to note that not everybody loves the Prius, and this gives us a chance to examine both sides of the issue, providing defenses of common criticisms that may not be valid, altho some are (and I'm a bona fide Prius owner - I love it, but admit it's not the perfect vehicle for everyone or every purpose). Nerfer 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just looked at the original Criticism section. That was a bit weak in my mind.  I can write up something better, but it would be longer.  This is already a rather long page, I'm going to think this over. Nerfer 05:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I linked to 'Petroleum-hybrid electric vehicle' page (why isn't it called the more commonly used 'hybrid-electric vehicle' term?). I'll put the criticisms there, since that page is much shorter and more applicable to general hybrid discussion.


 * Also note that I combined the two Criticism sections on this talk page to one. Nerfer 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the reasoning behind the name petroleum electric hybrid vehicle was that it was supposed to cover specifically vehicles that have both an electric motor and a gas/diesel engine. Technically an electric bicycle is a "hybrid-electric vehicle" since it uses a combination of electric power and human power. (I wasn't the one who made the decision, just trying to explain what I believe was the thought process behind it, which I happen to agree with). Plymouths 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My vote is for a Criticisms section. It seems as though the rest of the page was written by hybrid elitists, it will be more balanced adding a section to counter that. It really seems that they jump at every chance they get to say how efficient the prius is. Most people will admit all benefits of owning a prius (and most hybrids like it) completely dissappear if you dont spend most of your time driving in the city. The prius is not a highway car and definitely not a 'road car'; there would be nothing worse than being stranded on a backcountry road with no gas AND no power (the power supply being depleted using the electric engines as a supplement to try to maintain highway speeds). I wish that the article would reflect more of these weaknesses and shortcomings and be context specific when discussing its advantages over a normal (IC) car, in reality it has very few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.47.123 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article might/should incorporate this information on the environmental damage of a Prius: http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

69.2.251.189 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

69.2.251.189, your link is dead. In what way does the car create damage?Ken McE 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Criticism
It should be noted that the Prius has no Distance to Empty indicator, and a digital gas gauge instead of a normal needle-and-background gauge. This gauge is inaccurate, showing "blips" instead of a fabricated needle. The manual even mentions that it can be inaccurate by up to 1.2 gal, a huge amount. On a just-barely-related note, some theorists [no official word, sources are obviously not backed by research teams] suggest that Prius owners running out of gas is why Toyota removed their Roadside Assistance program. I'm not really good enough with WP to add this kind of thing, or know if it's worth adding. SkylineBNR34 10:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not making anyone angry by writing a short note into this discussion page. I was surprised to see that there is no Criticism section in the Toyota Prius article, as American society seems to be really critical of this vehicle. The major criticism, repeated everywhere, is that the production of the Prius battery supposedly causes more environmental damage than 3 Hummers throughout their lifetimes. The battery of the Prius supposedly needs nickel, which is extracted from the mine in a way that permanently kills off all surrounding plants. Example: type in "Prius" into the search engine of facebook. You will find that there are countless "Prius-hater groups" but only one or two owners clubs on facebook. BTW when editing Wikipedia, please do take into account that not only Americans use Wikipedia. (András from France)
 * No need to apologize. That's what we're here for.  :-)  A few weeks back, there was a write-up on it which referenced this page as a source.  This (along with some non-encyclopedic rebuttals placed in the article) was removed with this edit on April 17.  I feel the referenced page is not a reliable source, being an editorial in a college newspaper.  The study referenced in the editorial is available here, which is a tasty ~450-page PDF written by a marketing research firm, which might not be exactly the most reliable source either.  However, have at it.  :-)  RTucker 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm not entirely sure an article entitled "Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage, Says Editorial" is going to cut the mustard as a reliable source, beings that it's just citing the college newspaper editorial above. I don't want to be a jerk about things, but that's getting a bit of a rewrite.  :-)  RTucker 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

András, it's not so much that Americans don't like it as that there is an anti-hybrid publicity campaign going on. It's just business. The pollution problem at Sudbury is only very slightly related to hybrids, and besides the canadians have been fixing it back up. Vive la Hybrid, and Vive la France!

Heres one good solid city-raised American to attest that he has never met anyone who has anything nice to say about a Prius. :) And we dont happen to be a part of this 'Publicity Campaign', but if such a campaign exists, could you tell us how to join? I really think it should be a bit more obvious how many americans really dont like Priuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.47.123 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Dunham's Prius
In Jeff Dunham: Spark of Insanity Jeff Dunham mentions he has a powder blue Prius, and it becomes one of the subjects of his comedy in said movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.40.99 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say we need to add that factoid into the article, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.228.251 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing fuel consumption
Propose deletion of disappointing fuel consumption subsection (near the end of the article). This section is really about dissatifaction with US government testing conditions in that it overestimates the gas mileage that ordinary people get. It is not a fault related to the Prius. If you want to compromise, consider shrinking it to a sentence about surprise that some people have that they don't get the fuel consumption stated by the US government (and provide a citation). Congolese (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then do ahead and shrink it down (the Prius is of significance to the matter as it's used as the posterchild for why the EPA's old system was flawed and why the new system is a lot more accurate. Just don't keep adding to the list of references; some of them are probably redundant, but I'm juggling this with school work, so I'll leave it in your capable hands. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Recalls
Many cars are subject to recalls. None of these seem particular notable. They are not life threatening or received prolonged coverage. Suggest deletion or summarized and integrated into article. Congolese (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with a factual list of recalls. An owner of a 2005 Prius might like to know there's a recall on the steering system, although you could argue the owner should already know about it (if not buying it second-hand).  What do other popular cars have in their articles?  I need to look around more. Nerfer (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked at some other car articles randomly. They don't have a recall section, to you were justified in removing this. Nerfer (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What happended to the Recalls section? The safety recalls specific to the Prius are important content IMO. If there is no objection I'll either revert it or or re-add (with citations) WopOnTour (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many vehicles have saftey recalls like this. We generally don't list them unless a vehicle is particularly known for it's recall issues as discussed in reliable sources.  Adding recall info only to the Prius page give the impression that it is the only vehicle with these common issues. --Leivick (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really. So what in you opinion contitutes "particularily known"?? Quantified in what manner? Frequency? # of vehicles affected? % of model of a given range/model year?I'm not talking about random recalls for cosmetic or various functionality reasons- I'm talking safety recalls specific to the Prius only.My sources were fine, but if you'd like I could link them to NHTSA but most users wouldnt be able to link without access. But I still believe it should be included, otherwise where's the balance? Awards and spin in this WP make read more like marketing/advertising. WopOnTour (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be"particularly known" if a reliable source said it was. What we would need is a source saying the Prius is known for its numerous recalls.   GM just recalled almost a million vehicles, should that be listed on all the effected vehicles pages, I say no, but I would be interested in hearing what you think. --Leivick (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I understand what you are saying.But where do you draw the line? Do you say since the Prius is not "known" for having a driver and passenger airbags, or child seat mounting (as almost any other new car has)then content as such should not appear? When it comes to safety recalls IMO it's all about scale.The 1 million GM vehicles recalled last summer was across 3 distinct model years (06-08) actually affected 14 different high-volume GM models but less than 15% of those vehicles required ANY dealer repair action (other than an precautionary inspection for a defective component) So by comparison as a % of production that were actually "affected", some might think it was neither noteworthy nor encyclopedic.(some may)However a safety recall that results in an actual repair action for 100% of the 160,000+ vehicles in question, on the other hand, with coverage in mainstream media (not just blogs and fan sites) does IMO constitute encyclopedic content as it rubber stamps historic moments in a particular vehicles life cycle. So if an editor chose to add a "Safety Recalls" section in the Saturn Outlook page and added that 13,563 2007-08 Saturn Outlook models required a modification to the heated washer system,(with references of course)I;d agree with it. As a user of Wikipedia I would be interested in learning about those aspects of it's history WopOnTour (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a Prius site. Keeping a running list of recalls is not encyclopedic. If a recall is notable, like the Ford Explorer/Firestone tire fiasco, that would be a different story, but generally I'd say they do not belong. Frank  |  talk  20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed recalls must have some evidence of notability to be included. The problem is that this type of recall is very common and it really isn't worth mentioning every recall on every car page, which is what would have to be done if it is included here.  If this is the only automobile article to list recall info in this fashion it creates the false impression that the Prius is particularly effected by recall issues.  I had this same argument regarding TSBs for the Honda Odyssey (admittedly TSB are even less notable) but the argument is the same; we don't want articles cluttered up with trivial info that is only really of use for owners.  As for the airbag example I actually think you are right.  This article has a features section which is not encyclopedic either, this isn't an ad (nor is it a consumer watchdog site).  I am going to go ahead and remove the features section. --Leivick (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "This is an encyclopedia not a Prius site" Well Frank that's my point. Have you read the entire Prius article in detail? Model history, specifications, and notable features are one thing but including common industry safety equipment such as driver-passenger airbags count, child seatbelt, and tire pressure monitoring systems read like a sales brochure.(and let's not even mention the "Available Aftermarket Equipment" catalog- LOL! These types of items are far less encylopedic IMO than safety recalls that received media airtime and coverage.If there's a Safety section, then there's a place for safety recalls IMO. But if the whole safety section went, I believe the article would be improved as a whole. All road vehicles have to meet the same federal safety standards. FMVSS208 The controversies section on the other hand is relevant and even encyclopedic given the raging debate on the true "net" environmental effects of vehicle hybridization nd electrification. Thank U2 for the discussion, I'll delete my previous work.  WopOnTour (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, nice working with you. --Leivick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sales
I agree that some sales figures are ok. But do we need monthly sales figures? I think not. Besides, there is no citation despite a citation needed tag for a while.(I didn't put the tag there, someone else did.) Shouldn't we remove the uncited monthly sales table? Congolese (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo
Propose deletion of the electric steering. It is just a part lying on the floor. It doesn't seem to add anything to the article. There is also no explanation. Congolese (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC) How about not so many police car photos? Just a representative one, maybe another one from another continent.Congolese fufu (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

petrol and gasoline compromise
We need to reach an agreement on whether to use petrol, gasoline, or both in each instance in the article. This is not a big issue but I think it deserves some attention. Kushalt 04:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See below the section "Terminology for fuel." Edison (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to google
The citation for the Latin derivation of Prius currently tells people to search for it in google. Andjam (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology for fuel
The initial version of this article used "gasoline" rather than "petrol" so per WP:ENGVAR the North American term is the preferred on for the article. I added the term "petrol" after the initial mention of gasoline. Other than that, there seems no good reason to add "petrol" each time the gasoline fuels is mentioned in the rest of the article, since it clutters the text The reader who has never heard that in some countries what they call "petrol" is called "gasoline" can be expected to remember it during the course of reading the article after an initial explanation. If there were a direct quote in the article, such as "My Prius uses less petrol than my old car did" that would be fine, or if there were mention of "Petrol stations in London" or some such regionally justified mention I would have no objection. Per WP:ENGVAR the best solution is to use a neutral term such as "fuel" although that is less informative than a term which makes clear the thing does not run on diesel, hydrogen, ethanol or some other fuel. Edison (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

latest controversy addition
Does anybody buy this as valid research? Two newspaper reporters with pre-existing biases against the prius (as noted by the article) take a Prius and a BMW diesel out for a drive to see which one is more fuel efficient, and the Prius loses. I'm not buying the "science" used here. I propose rewording it somehow. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is controversial and not straight because:
 * Its not repeatable. Every prius driver I know would get better gas mileage.
 * Comparing apples or oranges. Diesel is higher octane Diesel has more energy per volume and more expensive.
 * It needs to have text around it saying why it plays the bimmers strengths and the hybrid weakness, ie 75 mph.
 * Also good to mention that even though the bimmer is getting better mpg it is still emitting 4x as much smog forming emissions. I've seen different specs that say the Prius emits 80-90% less smog forming emissions then the "average" car.  Diesels are known to be dirty.
 * I caution Defacto to any more reverts since he maybe subject to the wp:3rr rule.
 * Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To assert that the findings of the Sunday Times journalists are "controversial", you need to find a reliable reference which states that, otherwise that assertion will be nothing more that original research. Until that reference is found, the BMW comparison is a valid addition to the 'Fuel consumption' section, as the reference is a perfectly reliable source.
 * And to answer your other points in order:
 * Whether the people you know would get the same result, or not, is irrelevant, unless their findings are also reported in a reliable source.
 * Diesel has a significantly lower "octane rating" than gasoline, and its price varies by market and by the tax regime of the jusisdiction in which it is sold. Anyway, neither point has any bearing on fuel efficiency.
 * Any "text around it" needs to be from a reliable source.
 * As for "smog forming emissions" you will need a reliable reference to support any assertion that the Prius emits 80-90% less of them than the BMW diesel engine, which has a diesel particulate filter, and which more than meets the latest stringent European emission standards.
 * -- de Facto (talk). 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the "truth", there's a question of WP:UNDUE and also a question of WP:CRUFT. That any given car could beat the Prius in gas economy is not that relevant, since there is no "best MPG evar" claim to reject.  It's not a question of: "is it true", it's mostly the question: "does anyone care"?  The dust to dust study got a lot of media coverage because it directly challenged the "environmentally friendly" image of the car.  This study is just sort of irrelevant.  All it proves is that the Prius is not the only fuel efficient car on the market.  There are a lot of "rabid supporters" and "rabid haters" of this particular vehicle, and this site isn't a place to debunk every possible study that might criticize the car.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if this article wasn't about a car which is treated in a special way because of its fuel consumption. Alternative points-of-view are essential for a balanced and neutral article, and if a reliable source throws doubt on the assertion that the Prius is "the most efficient car available in the U.S. in 2008", then it must surely be included. -- de Facto (talk). 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be worth explaining in the article that the conditions of "best mileage" are under specific, controlled circumstances, and that your mileage may, literally, vary. Frankly, though, arbitrary bureaucracies that make it their business to evaluate things like fuel economy are probably more reliable sources than the media.  News agencies are trying to sell Wonder bread or compete for ratings and "Prius wins fuel mileage test" would be like reporting "Generalissimo Franscisco Franco is still dead."  If the favored horse loses, the people who bet on it want to know why and the people who bet against it want to gloat, so more papers get sold or more people watch.  If the government tests could be shown as biased or the car could be shown as specifically designed for the test and ineffective under any other conditions (both reasonable questions to ask) then this would be reasonable "real world" evidence to include.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The test was not even done with US models, and the portion where the Prius got lower mileage was at speeds that are illegal in the US. As for the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times's reputation, just read the article on it. The article is deceptively headlined "Gas Guzzler" then suppresses the actual mileage figure for the BMW to give the impression its advantage is much larger than 5% by volume, and doesn't mention it is -10% by energy. (as noted in Diesel fuel, please read relevant wikilinks before adding a fact tag) The Prius driver even admits gratuitously hitting the throttle and lowering mileage to 10mpg. In contrast, "most efficient" is a direct quote from the US government, and cited with qualification explaining exactly what it means.
 * The only conclusions you can draw from the Times article is that excessive speeds give lower mileage (agreeing with my own experience of 50mpg on road trips at 65mph and under, and lower mileage at higher speeds) and that diesel is different from gasoline (besides the density difference, the Technology section already mentions differences in pumping loss). --JWB (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably worth noting that the car wasn't designed for high-speed driving, it was designed to get stuck in traffic, and repeating the test between those two cars crossing LA at 7 AM will produce very different results.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as "not designed for" which is vague and subject to misinterpretation, but the article can and should note lower mileage at high speeds, along with the perspective that this is normal behavior for most cars. In fact, the article could use a whole section on how driving technique affects mileage, as this has always been one of the major topics discussed by Prius enthusiasts... now that I'm looking for it, I'm surprised to not find it already. --JWB (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption
I have added the findings of the Sunday Times report to this section as a valid contribution to the 'fuel consumption' discussion. Real-world findings are always interesting to compare with the theoretical and laboratory-based estimates provided for government "official figures". -- de Facto (talk). 11:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the introductory paragraph to the comparisons to try and put them in context. Though I would prefer them to be deleted as largely irrelevant. Sapientical (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted, in good faith, the edit as apparent original research. Please feel free to restore it if you can also supply reliable sources for those views.  -- de Facto (talk). 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag removal by User:JWB
I noticed that User:JWB removed two 'fact' tags that I had added to the article, with the edit summary: "Please read your own references before adding fact tag". The tags were applied to the assertions: I've read the reference, I cannot see either of those assertions supported there - can anyone help? -- de Facto (talk). 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel"
 * 2) "... regenerative braking, a major feature of hybrids"

--JWB (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The text in this article links to the diesel fuel article which gives the 15% figure and a reference for it.
 * 2) Regenerative braking for the BMW is listed in the Sunday Times article which you originally added.. (On reread, it also cites low air drag, low rolling resistance, and continuous fuel consumption display, all also features that follow the Prius's lead, though not hybrid per se.)


 * OK, so neither of the assertions that I flagged as needing references are in fact referenced, and certainly not in my "own references". The diesel fact is from another article, so needs a reliable reference in this article (which I flagged for), as the Wikipedia policies specifically state "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" (see WP:SPS).  Although "my" reference mentions regenerative braking (which is why I didn't flag that part of the sentence), it doesn't support the assertion that I questioned - that they are "a major feature of hybrids ", so it too needs a reference (which I flagged for).  Are you going to provide the references or revert your edit? -- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that the same reference be repeated in every article that touches on the same fact. This is absurd and would make summary articles impossible. The requirement is that Wikipedia have a reference for the fact, which is done in the appropriate detail article. See WP:Citing sources, WP:Summary style and WP:Lead. This has nothing to do with citing Wikipedia as a source, which we are not doing.
 * Regenerative braking is mentioned immediately in all technical descriptions of hybrids including Hybrid electric vehicle. It is pretty much a defining feature: a motor/generator connected to the drivetrain enables both electric propulsion and regenerative braking, and conversely regenerative braking means having a generator connected to the drivetrain. I have no idea what you are questioning here. This is subject-specific common knowledge as in When to cite. Perhaps you can explain your objection more clearly. --JWB (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first point is mistaken. The guiding policy (Verifiability) clearly states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  Your other points are red herrings. -- de Facto (talk). 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're too embarrassed to back down after being proved wrong on basics, but repeating a distortion of a policy (WP:Verifiability sets criteria for "inclusion in Wikipedia", and the 15% difference was already included in Wikipedia and referenced) and ignoring policies that actually are relevant gets you nowhere. If you do actually find some information that supports your position here, please let us know. --JWB (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be suggesting that my interpretation of what WP:Verifiability is telling us is incorrect. You don't think it applies per statement, but to Wikipedia as a whole.  If you are correct, then any specific citation only needs to be placed once, somewhere, in some article.  How would a reader know where to start looking?  In our first example: "Gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel", I asked for a reference, you deleted that request saying it is covered.  You expect the reader to start where?  By going to the diesel article?  OK, so let's try it.  That article isn't linked from the instance I tagged, so does the reader search up and down the article for a link?  Type it at the "search" box?  Let's type it - we get to the diesel article, now what?  Read it all?  Scan for 15%?  Ah, there it is under "Power and fuel economy", fine - now where's the reference?  Umm, there isn't one.  Now where do we go?  There may well be a reference to that assertion in Wikipedia, somewhere.  The corollary being that you are wrong, and that my understanding of the policy is more likely to be correct.  You need to find and add an inline citation, or restore the tag. -- de Facto (talk). 11:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The passage is "burned 49 liters of diesel fuel, making 50.56 mpg, about 5% more. However, gasoline typically releases 15% less energy per volume than petroleum diesel." Diesel fuel is wikilinked for detail information on diesel fuel, which is exactly what wikilinks are for, and the 15% figure is referenced there. It strains credibility that you missed seeing the only wikilink in the passage. --JWB (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Diesel is the same article as Diesel fuel (so is Petroleum diesel), so your "That article isn't linked from the instance" is also incorrect for that article. After introductory material and disambigs, the 15% is in the second sentence! There is no "Power and fuel economy" section - that is in Diesel engine. --JWB (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so you provided a wikilink to an article which has a reference in it (somewhere). That still doesn't satisfy the request inherent in a 'fact' tag.  To clear a 'fact' tag you should provide an appropriate inline citation.  See Verifiability.  Incidentally, I was going to do it myself, but the citation in the Diesel article, to which you referred us, is incomplete (it lacks author, publisher, date, isbn), so I didn't think it was of good enough quality. -- de Facto (talk). 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gasoline cited the same Transportation Energy Data Book appendix in more detail, so I've added that to the citation in Diesel. Also, Petroleum diesel now links to the subsection in Diesel, so the cite is right under your nose. Again, WP:Verifiability says nothing about this issue, please read the other policies mentioned. --JWB (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a bit of a fiasco for you isn't it. I have changed the numbers in the Diesel article to reflect the higher Btu numbers in the cited reference, and I also changed the WP:OR percent difference number (which was 15% earlier) to 11%. So what happens here now? If anything, it certainly shows why the references need to be readily accessible, and supports my stance that they should be placed as inline cites, especially if requested with a 'fact' tag. -- de Facto (talk). 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stick to the issues and stop trying to personalize them. You aren't talking to a single individual, but a team of people. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'issue' is whether we need an inline reference for the 15% claim. Do you have an opinion on whether a 'fact' tag should be removed without providing an inline reference, or whether the reader should be expected to trawl through wikilinks in the hope of finding the appropriate reference? -- de Facto (talk). 15:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * wikilink to diesel should be sufficient or Diesel if you want them to trawl less. The wikipedians monitoring diesel article can argue about reliable energy percentage. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there are a variety of energy content estimates for both gasoline and diesel in both Wikipedia articles and non-Wikipedia sources. On the contrary, this shows that references with varying estimates should be in a place (the detail article for the specific topic) where they can be readily compared, analyzed and summarized, and having many differing references in different unlinked articles is an invitation to POV forking. --JWB (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section as false info
Deleted by User:Buddha24. Not that I disagree with the deletion on the basis of wp:cruft, but what is the false info? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel.Cardenas, can you please explain how you think that the deleted paragraph could be interpreted as wp:cruft. -- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * False is, well, false, the comment is mostly WP:UNDUE. One specific test that favored a different car over the Prius does not change what the US or British governments say about the car.  You could state that the Prius is very efficient but other reasonably comparable cars have been more efficient in certain tests, then cite the article, but giving any single test that much coverage is really kind of misleading.  I had never heard of this comparison until I saw this article, and they're a common point of discussion in our office (Prius owner, Civic hybrid owner, Vespa owner).  I've called it WP:CRUFT above because there are two sets of fans here: those who fawn over the Prius, and those who simply cannot stand it.  Including every single data point for and against in the main article is probably inappropriate, but I don't see a problem with a well-cited subarticle or list (i.e. Comparison of high fuel efficiency cars) linked directly here.  Also, the headline is "Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d" when it lost by 2 mpg (of 50) on a sample of... one test?  Yeah, clearly a robust, statistically valid conclusion.  I would call the test a tie without further data, but that doesn't make a headline that'll sell Froot Loops.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sunday Times hit piece is not false; rather, it's a good example of how to mislead while avoiding specific false claims that would be refutable.
 * I'll say again what I said about CNW: this kind of stuff gets circulated as rumors, and the best way to fight it is to document how it's wrong. Deleting all mention of it just leaves the public with one less resource to turn to, allowing the haters to keep circulating the rumors unchallenged.
 * A Comparison of high fuel efficiency cars article is not a bad idea, but note the existing articles Fuel economy in automobiles, Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors, Low-energy vehicle, Green vehicle, etc. --JWB (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it would be redundant with those articles, then. A caveat so the intro clearly shows that the Prius is not the undisputable champion of all things fuel mileage, just a really efficient car, might be appropriate for NPOV.  Cite this test as a reference (there are some comparisons with the Civic hybrid out there as well, so this isn't a first or only).  The information isn't "wrong" or "totally inappropriate" it's just WP:UNDUE to make such a limited test a third of the fuel economy section.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the current level of coverage of the Sunday Times piece is undue importance for the Fuel consumption section, which should concentrate on the general picture, though probably appropriate for the list of controversies.
 * The article is already 70k long, longer than recommended, and we need to start thinking about moving some detailed content to subarticles and leaving only a summary in the main article. The Controversies section is about 15k and a good candidate for this. --JWB (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Splitting-off the 'Controversies' section would be to create a point of view fork, and would violate the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. -- de Facto (talk). 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is WP:Summary style, which is mandated for summary-detail article hierarchies - please read that policy. It is not a POV fork unless someone gives either the summary or detail article a different slant. Because the two are closely linked, it is easily visible if someone does this. --JWB (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note WP:POVFORK which specifically notes summary style is not POV forking. Evidently you didn't read this policy either. --JWB (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that summary style takes, basically, all the data relating to a sub-topic, to a new article, controversies included. So, say, the 'Fuel efficiency' section could become a new article, 'Fuel efficiency of the Toyota Prius', or whatever, and take its controversies with it.  But to take all the controversies to a new article would be pov-forking.
 * I think a better subject for a new article, and one which would relieve this article of much unnecessary detail, would be 'Technology incorporated in the Toyota Prius' -- de Facto (talk). 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption controversy
Given that, along with the credibility of its 'green' credentials, the question of what exactly the Prius's fuel consumption is, and whether it is better or worse than other hybrids, and even other non-hybrid vehicles, is continually being discussed in the motoring press, and to a lesser extent in the lay media, then it seemed appropriate to move the 'Fuel consumption' section to be under the 'Controversies' section. -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable, but I have substantial doubts about using the Sunday Times article as a reliable source. The tests I'd use for a reliable source in this case:
 * Full disclosure: Will the source publish the data regardless of the result?
 * Science:Does the source have a history of performing and publishing fuel economy tests, clear approval of methodology from a recognized expert in fuel economy testing, or sufficient description of method for an effective peer review?
 * Bias: Does the source have a demonstrated conflict of interest or bias? (i.e. Toyota internal studies are not viable for arguments.)
 * As far as I can tell, the Sunday Times article appears to fail two of three criteria. It seems unlikely it would have been news if the Prius had won. and googling mileage test "Sunday Times" ford doesn't show any other discussion of similar testing for vehicles of another popular make.  The article includes some discussion of method, but not enough to independently repeat the test.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Reliable sources, you'll see the statement "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press." -- de Facto (talk). 19:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be, but a source that is reliable for one subject matter does not make it reliable for a different subject matter. Furthermore, this is not the Sunday Times reporting on the findings of an independent testing.  In fact, they were not reporting on the findings of any scientists or recognized experts.  Combine the content of the article with the headline, it is pretty clear that they set the terms of the experiment to reach their hypothesis.  Essentially, they were doing  original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia.  Justinm1978 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From The Times: "Although The Times and The Sunday Times are both owned by News International, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp, they do not share editorial staff and were founded independently. The titles have only shared the same owner since 1967."
 * Nobody so far is asserting that the reference should be excluded simply because from it's the Sunday Times. But it is an opinion piece or a lifestyle article on a single personal experience rather than an exhaustive independent test. It is notable enough to be briefly listed as one of many favorable and unfavorable articles in media coverage of the Prius, but not to be portrayed on the same footing as the EPA or Consumer Reports tests, which are appropriate primary sources for an objective Fuel Consumption lead. It offers a little bit of data and a lot of misleading presentation and is appropriately covered in a Controversies or Attacks section. --JWB (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was in the process of saying the same thing, just wanted to toss a bone to the Cargo cult science page here in the process. A critical variable, driver behavior, was not controlled in the test.  Other than "throwing the Prius a bone" of some city driving it doesn't look like a whole lot of thought went into course selection (i.e. whether that course was representative of commuting, long distance driving in general, etc...).  Considering how close the end results were (Marge Innovera would be impressed), one test produces a very limited amount of confidence in the data (datum, basically) and a "winner" cannot be easily determined.  Portraying 48 mpg on a long distance trip as "bad" is ludicrous by modern standards.  The only conclusion that I would draw from the test is that the beemer in question is very fuel efficient under those conditions.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's diesel, plus it's described as having at least four efficiency features originally pioneered or taken to new levels by the Prius! Regenerative braking (which qualifies it as a mild hybrid), fuel consumption display, very low body drag, and low rolling resistance tires. If it really loses less fuel efficiency at high speeds, it's probably designed that way, for European speed limits. The Prius's high-speed fuel performance is not just a result of being a hybrid (as the article seems to say now), but primarily because of the specifics of the Prius transmission, that is the choice of a single planetary gear (the PSD) and the gear ratios in it. At really high speeds, MG1 has to be powered up to spin at a high reverse speed. --JWB (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with BMW
This is a valid contribution to the discussion. The Reliable sources guidline states: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, ...", and "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces". The WP:UNDUE policy talks about "viewpoints", not reports of factual findings. -- de Facto (talk). 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE was invoked since a badly constructed study is receiving more coverage than reliable and uncontroversial sources (gov't agencies, Cons. Reports). The data may be what they got in the test, but repacking that data into our own analysis is original synthesis.  The analysis in the article fails WP:V and is not reportable.  Reporting the data without the context is misleading and inappropriate.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that the "government agency" data is controversial, given the criticism it receives in the media. Tests, such as the one in the ST, are performed because of doubts about the reliability of "official" data. -- de Facto (talk). 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That they have changed the methodology supports the claim that it is controversial, but it also shows that it is a method that is reviewed and improved. It isn't perfect, but it's based on a careful process and controlled conditions under intense scrutiny.  The "study" done by the ST has the quality of two guys resolving a bet they made at the pub after a couple of pints.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of formal and informal mileage tests available; for example, Edmunds MotorWeek are well-known auto publishers with lots of testing experience. Informal tests by amateurs do not need to be excluded entirely, but heavy weight should not be placed on a single one. The actual data from the Sunday Times test drive is not that strange; it's the deceptive and sensationalistic presentation that is more of a problem.

What tests do show is that mileage varies according to driving conditions, and the article should highlight this more explicitly as it is actual, useful information about the car. City mileage is high, city mileage when the car is already warmed up is very high (the main reason for the initial EPA 60mpg city number), highway mileage at legal speeds, though the hybrid system is less of an advantage in this case, is very good and similar to some other high-efficiency or small cars, and highway mileage at illegal speeds is still good but drops noticeably, which Toyota apparently accepted as a design tradeoff. --JWB (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Presenting the Sunday Times data alone as an authoritative test is what I'm protesting as WP:UNDUE, aggregate data of unofficial tests is good to include so long as the synthesis is from a reliable source (i.e. not wikipedia editors, NHRA, or welovehybrids.org).Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed some language for how to include this. It identifies it as a self-produced article (not just reporting a study) and focuses on discussions of the Prius. The numbers are given, but no comparison is made since the comparison in the article is editorial (not verifiable) and adding a comparison here would be OR. Those numbers look very suspicious, by the way, since 48.1 for the Prius substantially exceeds the EPA revised numbers. Hypermiler driving for the Prius has a lot of known techniques, but I would have thought they'd have discussed that in the article if they were using them.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the POV subjective phrase: "a diesel BMW 520d SE with a modest engine" with the factual phrase: "a BMW 520d SE with a 177 bhp (132 kW) diesel engine". About the numbers; don't forget that the article is British, and that the British use the imperial gallon, which is 20% larger than the U.S. gallon.  48.1 miles per imperial gallon is about 40 miles per U.S. gallon. -- de Facto (talk). 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The source actually says something about a smaller-than-usual engine, which is relevant for trying to figure out why the beemer also does well on fuel efficiency. Just stating the number isn't very helpful to a reader that doesn't have a point of reference.  Including the standard size engine for a "normal" car may be a more policy-friendly way to do it, but may not be as helpful to a reader.  For consistency and readability, we should not cite the figure in m/g(i) when all of the other mpg figures are m/g.  At least it's not in stones per furlong (have to look up the density of diesel for that conversion).Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ConsumerAffairs.com: reliable source?
Look at the article on Wikipedia for this site and a couple of the "external reviews" on the talk page for that article. Is this a reasonable source to use for the article?

If we retain these links, I want to be very clear in this article with distinguishing this organization from Consumer Reports, a much more established organization with some very different views and methods.

Affairs looks like a website that trolls for liability lawsuits and may have a negative bias against everything they might sue. They may actually be surprisingly neutral overall, but their statements may have to be put in that context.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Consumer Affairs actively searches for problems (including with the Prius) to report on.  Any vehicle sold will have occasional problem, and Consumer Affairs tries to sensationalize them, often with anecdotal evidence. Nerfer (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we care about co2 emissions?
The intro talks about CO2 emissions? Is CO2 that note worthy? If we look at the global warming article it talks about a 2 degree rise over a 100 years. So what? It talks about the oceans rising. So what? Can't people create a berm to save themselves if the water rises 3 inches? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that some countries have huge coastlines and the weather patterns will be different due to the increased amount of liquid water in the system. The fact is that climate change is a topic which many people are concerned about and CO2 is one of the factors which people believe to be relevant to the discussion, and one of the main points of interest for this particular vehicle. If you want to challenge the validity of CO2 greenhouse effect, this is not the place to do it. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether global warming is real. People believe in its validity and many of them choose Prius for its low emission. Therefore CO2 emission is relevant to this article even if CO2 itself may turn out to be insignificant with regards to climate change. DarkMirage (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Booming Sales section, Sequoia is an SUV, not a "Big Rig", POV problem
I saw that this extremely POV and inaccurate statement was copied verbatim from a Wall Street Journal article online. Big Rigs are 18-wheelers. To refer to an SUV as a "Big Rig" connotes, among other things, that it gets only 5-7 mpg, which is both inaccurate and very POV. Unless I am mistaken, copying obviously inaccurate and POV material from sources is against wikipedia policy. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling the Sequoia a ‘big rig’ wouldn’t belong in Wikipedia, but such hyperbole is fairly normal in journalism, and doesn’t inherently compromise the accuracy of the article. It’s the sales figures in the article that are cited, not the phrase ‘big rig’, and the word-choice isn’t bad enough to disqualify it as a source. David Arthur (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I found big rig to be entertaining and didn't know it meant 18 wheeler. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As that paragraph, and the one after it, were copies of copyrighted material, I removed them as per wp:copyvio. -- de Facto (talk). 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Recouped
The article said: "By 2004, Toyota's development costs of the Prius had been recouped, and the Prius is now considered to be a successful car from both technical and marketing perspectives."

I am removing this until there is a source. It is an important statement that must be cited. A quick Google search shows that it's not so obvious. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sales of Honda Insight
"However, this does not explain the lack of success for the even more distinctive Honda Insight.[60]. (Excluding the fact that demand for two-seaters is far less than that for four-seaters.)" - This seems to be completely redundant: you can't simply exlude the difference in demand for 2 and 4 seater cars when you're trying to explain why one car is more popular than another. Clearly if demand for four seaters is greater, the Insight's lack of success does not challenge the fashion argument. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of sourced statement
I noticed a statement I added some weeks ago to the "Comparisons with other vehicles" has been removed. This statement was sourced with a reliable source (BBC). The removal of a relevant sourced statement from this article is unwarranted according to policy.

Now, before starting an edit war I think it makes sense to get a consensus on whether it should stay or not. This is the statement with source:

''Consumer tests have shown petrol-electric hybrid cars in general are little more efficient than top of the range diesels. ''


 * Well, it's a bit of a sweeping statement, particularly the 'in general' part. I know Top Gear got better mileage from a BMW M3 (petrol) when raced against a Prius, but that was at race pace.  If you're driving a short trip at relatively low speed, and opt to just use the electric motor of the Prius, you don't use any petrol at all, and therefore beat every other car hands down.  Explain it a bit more and see what people think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the reference to the BMW comparison. It is not irrelevant that a car with a V8 engine can get better fuel efficiency in some circumstances.  The insulting edit comments that accompanied the original deletion were unnecessary and inappropriate. -- KenWalker | Talk 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fuel consumption - Comparisons with other vehicles: a L/100 km mess?
Should this section be re-written with lesser use of templates as extra-mpg conversion to L/100 km doesn't work well. Like: Motor Trend magazine conducted a test comparing the Prius with a Honda Civic Hybrid. The Prius had the better fuel economy by 3.9 mpgus, achieving 43.8 mpgus compared to 39.9 mpgus for the Civic. In a similar comparison performed by Edmunds.com, the Prius managed an additional 5.5 mpgus at 48.3 mpgus. Difference isn't 60 L/100 km, but 0.53 L/100 km less in fuel consumption. --82.203.181.186 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This section should at least have its title removed as comparisons are covered under the main title. Anyway there have not been any scientifically repeatable tests done on fuel consumption except those endorsed by official government departments. Everything else is anecdotal evidence and frankly useless. The M3 vs the Prius example as written here actually draws the wrong conclusion although the reference link gives the correct one. Quite a few other sections including the introduction contain irrelevances and erroneous conclusions. It totally spoils the article. I predict a deletion/correction spree in the near future. Sapientical (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed comparisation with Tata OneCAT-car
Some time ago, I added info about a comparisation with the Tata OneCAT (aircar). The difference was extrordinary high (the tata was up to 50x more fuel-efficient I believe). I feel that the info I added was very needed for the article (as allot of people wanting to buy a prius may take a look here, and decide then whether the aircars arent a better option for them; the're cheaper and allot more environmentally. Buying an aircar is thus also better for us (less pollution and climate change))

I hope that you can again find the removed info (from the article's history; I looked too but couldn find it) and reupload the info in either this article -or- the Tata One article.

Thanks KVDP (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of proposed cars that are more efficient than a Prius. Like most of them, the air-car is not yet produced, so why specifically bring up that one at this point?  (Also keep in mind a valid comparison is with another 5-passenger family car, preferably hatchback).  The Honda Insight would arguably be a good comparison, as it was actually produced, but sales for the 2-seater weren't high enough and it was cancelled.


 * P.S. Among other mistakes, it's spelled "a lot". "Allot" means to parcel out or distribute, which is not what you intended.
 * Nerfer (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That silly Top Gear "comparison
I removed that blog report about the Top Gear silliness where a Prius was "compared" with a totally different vehicle. Talk about apples and oranges! Nobody drives a Prius at maximum speed, so testing it at maximum speed is horrendously stupid. If anyone insists on that information being restored, then I insist on inclusion of the following data from the reference quoted, namely, "The EPA rates the BMW at 14 miles per gallon in the city, and 20 on the highway which compares unfavorably to the 48 and 45 figures for the Prius". Funny how that bit was left out. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

you misinterpreted the data, they were comparing them to prove that HOW you drive makes a bigger difference on mpg than WHAT you drive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.165.218 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
I added this tag because this particular comparison is highly unscientific. No specified speed is given, and the tester (Jeremy Clarkson) is known for not being a fan of the Prius, thereby giving some bias against it and setting the conditions of the test so that it would fail. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed that bit again (so your dubious tag went too). If that editor insists on restoring such silliness then I guess we need to take it elsewhere. I think that is one of the worst cases of cherrypicking data to suit a POV I have seen for a long time. Not sure who was responsible for it, but it very conveniently left out the comparable figures for normal everyday motoring, in which the Prius wins hands down. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think it should go, but I'm willing to give whoever thinks that it is appropriate time to defend their viewpoint. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is appropriate if it accurately reflects the report that it uses to support it. Whether we agree with the methodology used by those who are the subject of the report (the Top Gear team) is irrelevant.  The Verifiability policy's first sentence makes this clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." -- de Facto (talk). 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go, thanks for writing "It is appropriate if it accurately reflects the report that it uses to support it". Well, what you want in the article doesn't accurately reflect the report at all. Here's the guts of the report: (quote) "Clarkson chose the most extreme examples to make the point -- a sedan equipped with a V-8 engine producing 414 horsepower against the Toyota Prius with its 76 horsepower hybrid motor. The EPA rates the BMW at 14 miles per gallon in the city, and 20 on the highway which compares unfavorably to the 48 and 45 figures for the Prius. In this test, the M3 matched the speed of the Prius as the hybrid ran flat-out over ten laps of the 1.8 mile Top Gear Test Track in Surrey, England. Measurements taken after the run show that the Prius returned just 14.3 miles to the US gallon, while the BMW had 12 percent better fuel economy at 16.1 miles per gallon." (end quote). You would scream bloody murder if someone insisted on quoting only the data from everyday normal motoring (in bold above) but excluded the "comparison" between a Prius at top speed and a cruising BMW.  Moreover, the point that clarkson was trying to make, as in "Clarkson chose the most extreme examples to make the point", isn't even mentioned. Most unencyclopedic.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The information you mention is already covered elsewhere in the article. This item adds a bit of balance to the article, showing that the Prius does not necessarily offer a fuel-efficient solution in all circumstances.  Feel free to add more context from the source if you think that the original editors have ommitted something significant. -- de Facto (talk). 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did. Thanks. Incidentally, I think it's a bit precious to say Prius can't offer a fuel-efficient solution in all circumstances when Prius has never claimed to be able to do so, and was not designed to do so. It's as meaningless as saying a Cessna Citation can't supercruise. Would make nice bias tho in a "comparison" between a Citation and a F-22.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "can't offer a fuel-efficient solution in all circumstances" statement, I think, wasn't directed at Toyota, but at policy makers, and legislators, who, perhaps out of ignorance, are unjustly biassing tax policies etc. to favour specific cars regardless of their efficiency at the hands of the driver, rather than at fuel use itself. These flawed policies may be leading many of the more gullible members of the public to believe the hype and the spin.  Those who buy such cars, even if a less "politically correct" model would actually be more efficient for their driving style, are benefiting from their profligate waste of fuel, whilst those who buy cars such as the M3, which are more economical for their driving style, are being unjustly penalised. -- de Facto (talk). 09:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm questioning the reliability of this source, considering the unscientific nature of the experiment. It's cherry-picked data, to be sure, and misleading information.  WP:V covers whether or not we can find the source with the caveat of reliability.  WP:RS covers whether or not the source is to be trusted.  I say this one can not be trusted because it is hardly peer-reviewed, it's an online journal regarding the politics of driving, which puts it up there in the same vein as a blog (which are not reliable sources), and therefore it's inclusion is suspect. Justinm1978 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picked - what do you think the source left out? It said it as it was.  If it is the reliability of the source that you are now questioning, not the accuracy of the statements in the article, you should remove the "dubious" tag, and possibly add a more appropriate one, "Template:Verify credibility" perhaps. -- de Facto (talk). 12:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's cherry-picked because aside from leaving out the glaring point of the standard MPG between the two vehicles (it is not in the article what this BMW gets, so it belong here) and the test was setup with the intended result being a failure for the Prius. No "top speed" is given, so we don't know what the actual driving conditions were.  The distance is so short that the car could not possibly be warmed up, and we don't know if this was from a dead start or not.  Furthermore, you have one car giving all it has (the Prius) with the other not exerting anything close to an equal amount of power.  It's an apples to oranges comparison because the conditions between the two vehicles are nowhere near similar.  I understand you want to bring "balance" to the article, but your method of balancing appears to be refuting scientific tests with anecdotal evidence.  That doesn't bring balance, it brings original research.  You also did not address the reliability of the source.  You're essentially citing a blog with no real credentials. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not cherry-picked. It is an honest attempt to add the essence of an interesting exercise involving the Prius.  Add the BMW U.S. EPA mpg if you think it is significant - it's in the source, although never mentioned on the TV show.  The design of the test isn't discussed in the source (or mentioned on the show) so why mention it?  The speed wasn't discussed on the show, or in the reference, so how can we include it?  You think a Prius won't be warm after 18 miles?  The laws of physics dictate that both cars were "exerting" an equal amount of power, assuming equal weights, given they accelerated at the same rate, and both travelled at the same speed for the duration of the exercise.  The conditions were more-or-less identical for both vehicles - same day, same time, same track, same acceleration, same speed.  It isn't "anecdotal evidence".  The exercise was recorded and shown on TV.  You could watch it yourself if you want to check the accuracy of the account given in the source.  "Original research", in the Wikipedia sense, means an editor adding unpublished synthesis (possibly his own).  This item relies on published data, so cannot be OR.  As for whether the source is reliable; if you have concerns, see if you can find what you think is a more reliable source, or at least, add the appropriate tag. -- de Facto (talk). 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is as cherry-picked as it gets. You apparently have no understanding of real scientific research if you think this is a scientifically valid method of experimentation.  It's an apples to oranges comparison that doesn't tell us anything different than if you put a fat kid up against a track star, the fat kid will consume more calories to stay at his top speed than the track star will to match him.  You are POV-pushing, and it needs to stop. I'm going to remove the entire paragraph because it's flawed research and doesn't prove anything other than a bias against the prius. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't claim to be scientific, and I don't claim that it is. What it does, is highlight by example, that there is more to "fuel efficiency" than offical government figures, and that policies which Prius owners benefit from, which may be be based solely on official figures, may well be flawed policies.  I'm not POV-pushing, I'm preserving balance, and defending the inclusion of interesting, on-topic, fully referenced material, to the article.  For these reasons I've restored the paragraph. -- de Facto (talk). 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) It doesn't bring balance, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison in a test that was designed to make the Prius lose. You are also not abiding by what several other editors have said, that the paragraph shouldn't be included. I've listed this at WP:Third Opinion, since you prefer to ignore what is becoming consensus on this talk page, and removing it again. Right now, the consensus on the talk page is to strike it. Please abide by that. If you want it back, argue your case here or take it to arbitration. That's how Wikipedia rolls, yo. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag because it was inappropriately used. That tag is for disputed content for which reliable sources have not been provided.  This content is supported by a reliable source.  So, unless you believe that the paragraph misrepresents what the source says, please leave it intact. -- de Facto (talk). 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced the tag because the content is in dispute, because the source misrepresents the facts. One editor's opinion is not consensus, please continue to discuss. Justinm1978 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which facts do you believe are misrepresented in the source? The relevant part of the source (all but the first paragraph) is only about nine sentences long, so we can easily analyse each of them. -- de Facto (talk). 11:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also true that the Saturn V was infinitely more efficient for the journey to the moon than the Toyota Prius. But just as the Prius isn't designed to be a rocket, nor is it used as a rocket, it is not designed to be a race car, nor is it used as a race carm so the results of a race at very high speed are really insignificant.  Besides, everything on Top Gear is fixed and setup to be ENTERTAINMENT, as any intelligent viewer would discern. Should the "results" of all their other "races" be included in the respective Wikipedia articles on the topics? Constan69 (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's an apples to oranges comparison and is only present to present a bias and POV against the Prius. This editor has worked hard to disparage the Prius and minimize it's efficiency.  I'm considering taking this to arbitration or at least get a third opinion. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
The Top Gear test is probably not suitable for inclusion in this article. There are legitimate concerns about the reliability of the test and show, however they need not even be considered. Extreme claims require exceptional proof, which Top Gear's test is certainly not. Additionally, it represents an tiny minority position (at best), which also indicates inclusion is inappropriate. Vassyana (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting view - many thanks to Vassyana. I understand the points made, but do not necessarily accept their relevance.  We surely should not be questioning the reliability of the test or of the show, but the verifiability of the statement that it actually took place, and that the results were as described.  WP:V requires a verifiable source for a statement, not that the statement is necessarily even true.  As for the statement being an "extreme claim", that has not been suggested, and the statement is not necessarily surprising to anyone or unexpected given the stated circumstances of the test - it is just an uncomfortable truth for those enamoured with the Prius.  Equally, the statement is not a "minority position", that is; it is not an opinion held by a few, it is a statement of apparent fact.  I therefore believe that it is legitimate to leave the information in the article. -- de Facto (talk). 15:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, questions of reliability need not even be considered. If no one else takes the position, it is an extreme minority position. Due weight (and NPOV in general) not only applies to opinions, but also to the selection of facts presented in articles. If very few sources address this set of facts, it is still undue weight to include them, regardless of whether the claims are opinions or factual. Vassyana (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so you think that the important consideration for whether this particular information should be included, or not, is whether it would be receiving undue weight, or not. This, I guess, is a question of how much space is devoted to this information, in relation to how many reliable and verifiable sources for this information are available. -- de Facto (talk). 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After spending just a few minutes on Google it is clear that, in fact, very many sources address this set of facts, so to include them in the article will not contravene the WP:UNDUE policy. -- de Facto (talk). 11:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that objective fuel consumption figures from EPA & DoT, measured under controlled, documented, repeatable conditions are available, the whole "Comparisons with other vehicles section" is just unreliable trivia; maybe a brief summary of these could be kept under "media appearances" or some such, but it should be made clear that the EPA/DoT figures for fuel consumption are considered much more reliable. The current situation where figures claimed by journalists-taking-the-cars-for-a-spin are presented as reliable & significant facts instead of unreliable trivia is highly unsatisfactory AFAICS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.144.249 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just passing through, but third party opinions were asked for-- so here you go... It seems to me that comparing the fuel efficiencies of a car running at absolute maximum speed vs. one running less than that, even if the latter would normally get worse mileage is not a valid comparison. Sure, there's some entertainment value in it, but not something that I think should be included in an encyclopedia article. Sbonds (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since multiple people confirmed that this has no business being in the article, I've removed it AGAIN. De Facto, if you want it back, you'll need to take it to arbitration or abide by what is clearly consensus.  Stop being disruptive, please. You can find all the sources on google you want, but that doesn't make it any more valid for inclusion, per the reasons stated above. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They're mostly not reasons, they're opinions, and in some cases they contradict policies. The only valid reason above for omitting it was supplied by Vassyana, that was whether it carried enough weight.  Given the plethora of sites now covering it, it obviously does.  Adding valid contribution is NOT disruptive, but removing without a valid reason certainly is.  Before removing it again, please supply a new rationale for discussion, as all current objections are ill-founded.  Remember, personal POV is not an acceptable rationale. -- de Facto (talk). 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's consensus, and as a single editor, you don't have the right to override it. This is the most blatant case of POV-pushing I've seen ever.  If you want it back, take it to arbitration or some other venue to handle content disputes because you are in the very lone minority on this.  It's just that simple.  Justinm1978 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Justin. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that there is consensus? If so, where did you see it? -- de Facto (talk). 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this "consensus" precisely? You are against the piece, I am for it.  Another editor refined the wording of the piece (presumably condoning its inclusion). -- de Facto (talk). 14:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is consensus, de Facto, just drop it. And for the record, I agree with them. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous.  I've never seen anyone so flagrantly push their POV on the rest.  You wouldn't accept general consensus so third opinions were added.  They went against your position as well.  Stop abusing the system. Red Harvest (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to it? It was one-against-one when the other "one" went for a third opinion.  The only POV I have is that we need a more neutral, and representative POV here.  I'm not ashamed to push for that.  Should I be?  -- de Facto (talk). 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I count at least 6 votes against (including mine) versus your single vote for. Consensus doesn't have to include you.  You seem to have it confused with unanimous. Red Harvest (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Supply a link to the vote then, so that we can verify the result. -- de Facto (talk). 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the comments and names both in this and the other discussion of the article. Then take a tally.  Surely you can do that.  Folks rarely have a formal vote on consensus...that's a different approach. Red Harvest (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Summarize the edit war and recommend banning for wp:edit warring. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any need for that kind of draconian action with the two minor stumbling blocks we seem to have got embroiled with here. It could end in tears, with two or three editors implicated.  I propose we start a new talk section for each of the issues, and attempt to reach an agreeable consensus. -- de Facto (talk). 10:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. At "" and "". -- de Facto (talk). 11:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly, I have to agree with you Daniel. This isn't going to end until a certain editor desists from opposing consensus. Red Harvest (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We are trying to reach an agreement. I currently have serious concerns about the neutrality of some of this article.  Better to discuss it than to edit war I think - and that's what I am now attempting to do. -- de Facto (talk). 23:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I must reluctantly agree with Daniel as well. Is there interest from the other editors in putting something up at WP:AN/I?  I don't have the time to do it right now, otherwise it would already be there.  Justinm1978 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest the grounds should be, given that our "edit warring" ended nearly two days ago with your reversion here? Discussion is encouraged, so I don't think that that would be an acceptable excuse for an attempt to get someone banned. -- de Facto (talk). 06:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have located an appropriate approach, a request for review of user conduct. WP:RFCU Requests_for_comment/User_conduct It requires at least two editors comment, so it appears we should start by getting a list of editors who would like to join in the complaint and what the reasoning should be.  I'm inexperienced in filing complaints against other editors so if someone who understands the system better would take the lead, I think we can get a more satisfactory result.  (Honestly, I'm not sure how to work the template since it requires multiple input to make it valid.) Red Harvest (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words removed
I've removed the weasel words "may have" from "......which may have involved speeds which are illegal on the public road......." No "may have" about it. According to BBC the test was carried out at top speed. According to our Speed limit article the only places where the Prius' top speed wouldn't have been illegal are Nepal, Isle of Man, United Arab Emirates, Utter Pradesh and Germany (autobahns). Everywhere else in the world the top speed would have been illegal on the open road. Accordingly, I have edited the paragraph to read "In the Top Gear test, which involved speeds which are illegal on the public road in most countries......". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult one. Without the "weasel words" it becomes an assertion of fact which needs supporting with a reference.  All that was said on the programme was that the Prius was driven "as fast as possible" - with no specific details of actual speed.  We could speculate that at some point on the track the Prius possibly did achieve a speed which would be "illegal on the public road in most countries", but given that the best average speed managed on the same track (by "The Stig") driving another family saloon car (Suzuki Liana), was 62 mph, we need a reliable reference to support such an unequivocal specific assertion.  Without a reliable source, and without the "weasel words", the assertion will have to be removed. -- de Facto (talk). 08:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's only a difficult one for you. No "may have" about it, unless you want to claim a Prius could not exceed the England road speed limit on the BBC test track.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Involving hard acceleration, yes. Involving heavy braking, yes.  But to emphasis the speed, which even if it did get above the legal maximum for "some countries" at some point, could only have been maintained at that level for a very short period, no - without a supporting source.  It could also be construed as WP:OR - an unpublished synthesis of the published data - without a citation. -- de Facto (talk). 11:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

de Facto's Edits
We have a serious problem on this page with de Facto deleting a lot of relevant material in serial fashion. He also continuously overrides consensus, pushes his anti-Prius POV, and will not accept anything another editor says. This is the worst and most flagrant example of edit warring I've ever seen by an individual. How do we put an end to his non-constructive editing? Red Harvest (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Presumably you can substantiate those outrageous accusations against me. Please reveal your evidence:
 * That I have deleted "a lot" of relevant material.
 * That I continuously override consensus - requiring also, proof that a consensus existed.
 * That I have "pushed" POV.
 * That any so-called "anti-Prius POV" is, in fact, my POV.
 * That I will not accept anything another editor says.
 * Wars generally have two sides. Who is the other side in the "wars" you allege, and what action do you propose against them?
 * I agree that we have had problems with a cpuple of additions to this article, but I believe the problem lies with the outright refusal of a few to accept content which is critical or disparaging of the Prius. It is not my fault that such tendencies exist, and the article should not be deprived of relevant content because of it.  I attempted many times to explain my edits, but my attempts have usually been stonewalled - evidenced by the length of some of the discussions. -- de Facto (talk). 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody else is on the other side. That's the problem.  Valid criticism of the car is fine (including CNW's if the claims could be verified, instead they've been refuted.)  Your cherry picking to cast it in the worst light possible is not, particularly since you are so eager to delete other material that conflicts with your POV.  Folks are in agreement on many issues and you blow them all off telling EVERYONE that after examining what they have to say you've decided they are wrong and you will go on editing it like you intended in the first place.  Then you tell them they can discuss it more if they like.  Nobody wants to spend all day talking to you just so you can dismiss their arguments and tell them they have to do this into infinity.  Red Harvest (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence I asked for - or is there none? -- de Facto (talk). 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It literally fills this page. I'm sorry that you can't see it and continue trolling. Red Harvest (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so you refuse to substantiate your allegations and to summarise the evidence to help others to reach a verdict. Fine, there is hardly a case to answer then, is there. -- de Facto (talk). 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the new points you raised:
 * CNW's claims are just that, their claims. Speculation by others as to what data they may have used to arrive at their claims is just that - speculation, as I don't believe they have fully published their valuable collection of data.  To assert that speculation made by "X" (and rejected by "Y") automatically invalidates claims made by "Y" is nonsense.  The best we can do is to document, from reliable secondary sources, the CNW claims, the uses by the media & co. of the CNW report, and the notable criticisms made by others of the CNW report.  That is what encyclopaedias should do.  Keep our own POV out of it.
 * I've cherry-picked nothing, and deleted nothing worthy of keeping. I've added supportable content, and deleted personal POV, OR, and stuff founded on very unreliable sources.
 * Others are wrong when they dismiss reasonable requests for attribution of apparent POV (such as in the case of the use of the word "discredited"), and when they refuse to accept properly supported and relevant content (such as the Top Gear BMW piece).
 * -- de Facto (talk). 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessry detail in 'Navigation system lock-out' section
I thinned-out this section a bit earlier, but it was reverted almost immediately by Red Harvest. Can someone else have a look at it, and see if we really need this much detail, including the stuff about the Lexus and step-by-step instructions on how to use it. Refer to WP:UNDUE. Anything that stays also needs referencing (relibly and verifiably), so perhaps find references, or reinstate the 'fact' tags that have also been removed. -- de Facto (talk). 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it wasn't reverted. I restored material you cut out but I left it in the section where you have moved it and left in new sourced material that you added.  What I did not do is allow your "thinning" to completely change the section without consideration by others.  It makes more sense to give whoever wrote the section a chance to reference it rather than it getting lost in a flurry of your serial editing.  I have no position on the nav screen debate, but I do oppose your disruptive, slash and burn, anti-consensus editing style. Red Harvest (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't characterise my edit there as disruptive, more as BRD (a methodology I subscribe to). That section is bloated with unnecessary, and unsupported, detail.  It needs thinning and referencing.  Why not have a trim at it yourself if you object to me doing it.  You can be sure that if the original editor is really interested he'll be "watching" it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stumbling block #1: The use of the word "discredited" when referring to the CNW study
Can we retain the use of that word, in the sentence starting "A discredited 2006 study by CNW Marketing Research, ...", without directly attributing it to a source, and fulfill our obligation to comply with all Wikipedia polices? -- de Facto (talk). 10:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: by "directly attributing it to a source", I mean attributing it to a named person or organisation. For example "XYZ of Such and Such company stated that ...". -- de Facto (talk). 20:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Red Harvest (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How would you defend the accusation that it is a point of view based on an individual editor's personal interpretation of what the sources are telling him, and that another person reading the same data may judge the report's conclusions to be unproven, or open to doubt? An attribution would satisfy all the demands of the policies, and allow the readers to confirm for themselves that indeed a "reliable" source did draw that conclusion. -- de Facto (talk). 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The same way I've defended it a dozen times already from your incessant edit warring: it is a summary of points made by the references illustrating that the study's methods were unscientific, not-reproducable, preposterous, and that the study was inaccurate in its methods. Only someone wishing to mislead readers would suggest what you have been trying to force down our throats. Red Harvest (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that our edit warring has stopped. We are now engaging in the more acceptable activity of discussion of the points about which we disagree.  We need to understand each others views, and attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution.
 * So you say it's a summary. Whose summary is it, and why can't we attribute it?  Why only select the negative points to summarize?  The PI guy was reluctant to condemn the report without possession of the full facts.  Why ignore the "CNW... a firm with a well-established reputation for industry forecasting" from the TheCarConnection reference?  That's why the summary needs attributing, so readers can judge the credibility of the statement for themselves.  I simply want the report to be described neutrally.  That could mean more emphasis on the negative, if that is prevalent in the secondary sources.  Let's try it, shall we? -- de Facto (talk). 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes for the reason that subsequent research cited later in the section, including CNW themselves, have shown that to be not true, therefore discredited. This is a slightly loaded question, though.  Justinm1978 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that to assert that another opinion from another piece of research "discredits" the report could be construed as original research or as a personal point of view. We would need to cite who arrived at that conclusion, to avoid the charge of contravening WP:NPOV or WP:OR.
 * Incidentally, which specific "subsequent research" were you referring to, and which aspects of the original report did it prove to be untrue? -- de Facto (talk). 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You thinking it doesn't make it so. The only NPOV and OR violations I'm seeing are your own. Red Harvest (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of the discussion such as this is to air views, with the idea of persuading others, or of being persuaded by others. It would be pointless to enter such a discussion with a closed mind.  Can you point-out for us the violations you see? -- de Facto (talk). 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a loaded question. What is at issue is not inclusion of the specific word "discredited", but the accurate description of the discredited study. I've asked DeFacto above what adjectives are appropriate to describe the conclusions that have been withdrawn by CNW itself in addition to the many refutations by reputable scientific sources, with no response. --JWB (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a loaded question. The use of that specific word is all that I am questioning in this discussion.  When I first saw it I assumed that it was placed there, in good faith possibly, but as a personal point of view, and asked (by use of the 'fact' tag) for it to be cited.  The tag was removed, and a cite was refused.  The word "controversial" would suffice, as the report is clearly that.
 * Incidentally, which conclusions did CNW actually withdraw, I know that the conclusions vary from year to year due to various changing factors. And, can you point us to specific "refutations" made by reputable scientific sources, I know the guy from the PI was reluctant to condemn it without access to all the input data, were there other stronger criticisms from him or others? -- de Facto (talk). 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the word is accurate (as description, not necessarily as a direct quote from a source) though not essential to accurate description of the CNW report and controversy.


 * I'll try to find more detail on the subsequent CNW reports. Where was Gleick reluctant to condemn it? In the meantime, the question to you stands: how to describe CNW's claims that were subsequently changed and/or refuted? --JWB (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "I think" sounds like a personal opinion to me. To be legitimately included here, we need to support it with attribution (who concluded that) and a source.


 * More detail is certainly what we need - it sounds like we don't have the necessary sources cited?


 * Reluctant to condemn it "without access to all the input data" is what I said. The introduction of Gleick's report states:
 * The conclusion contains such phrases as "calls into question" and "it appears that the report suffers from", and even states:
 * As for the answer to your last question, well it depends on how and why they have changed, and who refuted them, and with what reasons. We could say "A later version of the report, based on new data..." or "A.N. Other of Such and Such Company disputes the basis for assuming...".  We shouldn't attempt to sum-up several arguments - that is original research.
 * -- de Facto (talk). 22:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So is anything outside of verbatim quotes from sources then "original research"? We are talking about description of the mainstream scientific viewpoint vs. an unsubstantiated fringe one.


 * The quote from Gleick is a strong condemnation of the report. First he says the conclusions are completely at odds with facts, then he says they have failed to provide evidence and analysis as a scientific publication would. Claims without evidence are not creditable in the first place; in science terms, they are hardly claims at all. In media and popular terms, the CNW claims may have been credited and later discredited because some media coverage, even other than right-wing opinion pieces, appeared to take them seriously at first (which is questionable - they may have been simply reporting without arguing in favor of credibility, as is usually done with news items on persistent or familiar fringe opinions) and then later, media covered the refutations of the claims, though this was less publicized and I still run into people who have heard the claims and not the refutations.


 * What is of primary notability for this article is information about the Prius, in this case lifecycle energy cost, and inclusion of a claim depends on relevance and scientific credibility. The media circus is of less direct notability, and as I said, if we are going to cover it in any detail, it would be better split to a separate article, as endless discussion of it is possible and this article is past recommended size already. --JWB (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Original research is defined in WP:OR, and WP:PSTS is particularly relevant here (the CNW and PI reports are primary sources):
 * And WP:SYNTH here:
 * We must attribute.
 * And WP:SYNTH here:
 * We must attribute.
 * We must attribute.
 * We must attribute.


 * I agree that the CNW report should have an article of its own, and that only the Prius specific detail needs to be mentioned here. -- de Facto (talk). 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, and I've only come to realize this in the course of this discussion: CNW "defends" its lifetime mileage estimates by saying they are defined in such a way that even if they were true, they would be by definition be irrelevant to potential car buyers comparing cars. CNW claims that Prius owners for some reason have been driving their cars for few miles a year, and Hummer owners for some reason have been driving their cars huge distances per year. But an individual buyer comparing cars has his/her own transportation needs, which are for the most part determined by the buyer's life and not by the model of car. As far as the model of car does influence driving distance, currently the major effect is that people are trying to control gas expenses by cutting down driving in high fuel consumption vehicles. This was in CNW's later rebuttal posted on its site, but not to my knowledge in any of the original media coverage of the initial CNW report, which presented the CNW report as saying that it would be more efficient for an individual to buy and own a Hummer than a Prius. --JWB (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CNW are upfront about the basis of their report. If others choose to use it, or abuse use for other purposes, CNW cannot be blamed for that - it could be noted though.  CNW work with "averages" not "maximums".  Average life expectancy is just that.  Would you expect life insurance premiums to be based on the age of the oldest person ever, or on average figures for a given age, health, fitness, etc?  I guess CNW's collection of data must be telling them what the average life expectancy is for each vehicle model.  When you buy one, you don't care that after a decade or so, and after half a dozen different owners it will probably be scrapped for economic reasons, rather than because there is no more life left in it.  Land Rover Defenders last for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles, not because they are particularly reliable, but because they are crude, robust, easy to fix, and of an ageless design.  Cars which "age" more quickly (fashion fads, technology, etc.), cannot be fixed by the use of a lump hammer, and are impressively reliable, will probably not last so long.
 * However, if you can cite secondary sources making the points that you state, then they should be added to the article, particularly (because this is the Prius article) the idea that current developing trends are increasing the expected life-miles of the Prius. -- de Facto (talk). 09:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to CNW's original report? Given that all the secondary coverage I've seen has failed to explain this issue, it is reasonable to ask how prominently it was mentioned, or even mentioned at all in the original report. The fact that it was mentioned in the later CNW rebuttal also suggests it was not in the original. And CNW features on its own site copies of secondary coverage like this which makes this mistake and suggests the Prius only has a lifespan of 100,000 miles and specifically urges individual buyers to decide on this basis.


 * The life insurance analogy would apply for a business such as writing insurance for cars where the model of car is known to the insurer, but the insurer has no idea how much the driver is actually driving, unlike actual insurance policies where the driver has to estimate annual mileage, and the insurance is for the car's whole lifetime. Unlike this obscure and nonexistent case, the analogy does not apply to the everyday case of a buyer comparing cars to find which meets the buyer's goals for monetary or energy or pollution cost, which is what the CNW report has been represented as.


 * The obsolescence argument CNW gives is also specious. Most electronics products become obsolescent because products with much improved functionality quickly appear. In the case of the Prius, the main improved functionality is good gas mileage. If future cars have major reductions in fuel consumption compared to the Prius, they obsolete current non-Prius cars even more than they obsolete the Prius, so this cannot be used to argue that current non-Prius vehicles have an advantage over the Prius. Also, the possibilities for improved fuel consumption are much more limited than the opportunities for improved performance in computers, etc. Compared to any current vehicle with significantly worse mileage, the current Prius has already achieved most of the possible improvement, especially if you measure fuel consumption (e.g. liters/100km or gallons/100mi) rather than mileage (miles/gallon).


 * For the complexity argument, all current cars include similar levels of electronics including multiple computers. Again, not an argument that shows the Prius to be inferior to other current vehicles. Cars from the 80s and 90s already had considerable electronics and many Toyotas especially are still being used after 20 years. If you want to argue that current cars in general will have a low lifespan because they use electronics, go ahead, but this is not what CNW is saying as they give widely varying ratings to current cars. In contrast a sturdy, simple older design like the Land Rover or my Saab 900 may be fixable with relatively low technology, but it still needs to be fixed often, and is not an economical choice if you are a consumer in a developed country, not a mechanic who does your own work, and have to buy replacement parts.


 * Then, the "fad" argument. There are now about a million on the road; are you seriously maintaining they are owned by frivolous buyers with no need to actually drive them significantly? Resale value and customer satisfaction have both stayed at near-record highs.


 * Addressing more of the crap in CNW's rebuttals:


 * "One very simple example: Prius tires last approximately one quarter of the miles of those on a Toyota Corolla. No Prius life-cycle study, aside from ours, calculates the energy and resources consumption necessary to make those additional three sets of tires. Nor does any other life-cycle study of Prius or any other vehicle include calculations reflecting they types of replacement tires purchased. Better than half of all Prius tire replacements are with less efficient, off-the-rack brands that significantly harm Prius fuel economy. " Spinella seems to be talking about the low rolling resistance tires on the 2000-2003 model, which were replaced with another model for 2004+. In any case, I've replaced my tires with standard road tires rated for a high life expectancy, and have not noticed any loss in fuel economy.


 * "A headquarters Toyota executive stated to Australian media that the Prius was likely to be a 100,000-mile vehicle before major repairs, battery replacements or other significant maintenance was required. I am sure he is no longer allowed to discuss such topics with the press. " Toyota WARRANTEES the Prius's hybrid components for 100,000 miles in the US. --JWB (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the original report is contained in the pdf, still available on the CNW site. If the precise "issue" you are thinking about is the assumptions they made to estimate the lifetime mileage of the Prius, then they did mention that, starting on page 47.
 * All of what you say is interesting, and, with appropriate attribution, much of it could be in the appropriate article (this one or a new "Dust to Dust report" article). However, I don't think any of it supports the un-attributed use of the word "discredited", the subject of this discussion. -- de Facto (talk). 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On that page 47, Spinella claims that projected years on road are highest for "premium SUVs". This NY Times story from 2 weeks ago details how SUV demand and prices have collapsed with high gas prices. Last month, Automotive Lease Guide, the company whose estimates of vehicle value, after several years of depreciation, are used to calculate lease payments, made unprecedented downward adjustments to many sport utility vehicles’ residual values. The company now says a Ford Expedition will retain 32 percent of its value after three years and that a Chevrolet Suburban will be worth just 30 percent of its original price. A few years ago, such vehicles were estimated to keep about half their value after three years. Meanwhile, the Prius continues to set records for resale value. USA Today: A used Prius is a hot commodity these days


 * Is CNW "innocent" of "misuse" of the report? As noted, they repost on their web site press coverage which makes the incorrect assumption. Let's look at the link you just gave... on page 10, Spinella quotes his original press release about the report, and explicitly says consumers should use his figures as a guide when purchasing a vehicle, and he doesn't explain that the skewed numbers for the Prius and Hummer are derived from assumptions that could only be valid over car owners in general, not for a single owner.


 * By any reasonable definition (except the one specifying unfairness!) the above discredits the highly publicized report conclusions. --JWB (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In your personal opinion the conclusion from your synthesis above is that the report is discredited. Wikipedia insists upon a neutral point of view, and upon published synthesis to support content.  If you believe that you can provide support (reliable secondary references) for the above synthesis, and can provide attribution for use of the word "discredited", then go ahead - and I will drop my opposition to its use.  Otherwise, and as it stands today, despite it having been asked for (with the 'fact' tag) that support is not there, so the word must be removed. -- de Facto (talk). 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And that is your personal opinion. Your request is very excessive, and you are in the lone minority opinion.  This conversation can proceed no further until you either 1) accept that consensus has not been overturned; or 2) Take it to WP:3O or some other outside group, as you are not changing the minds of anybody here. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My request is very modest. Attribute the use of the word "discredited", or remove it, because as it stands its use appears to be based upon pure original research. -- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Summary words are not original research. This has been covered countless times.  None of your requests could be characterized as modest.  "Demanding" would be a better summary of your "requests", as you've demanded this and that of every other editor and failed to accept the reasoning of other editors.  There is consensus.  You reject it and pretend like discussion of the same matters must continue indefinitely in the absence of any real new development. Look up the definitions of consensus and summary and learn how to apply these "new" concepts, then get back to us. Red Harvest (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You assert that "summary words are not original research". They may well be, and the policy is very clear about this:
 * Additionally, WP:CITE is clear about when and how references are to be provided:
 * -- de Facto (talk). 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- de Facto (talk). 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- de Facto (talk). 15:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again for the record, I'm not insisting on the word "discredited", but on inclusion of the facts cited above, which discredit the most-publicized conclusion of the report - simply giving the facts lets the reader make the obvious conclusion. If any other editors are insisting on the specific word rather than the explanation, please speak up - I believe their position is similar to mine. It is only DeFacto who keeps trying to divert focus to the word. If someone does want a secondary source use of the word, with a couple of minutes of searching I found one from a Sierra Club columnist. --JWB (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The word is the subject of this discussion, and is the current problem - its use is unsupported. "Controversial" was replaced with "discredited", with no supporting attribution or reference, in this edit.  I attempted to get it removed or attributed, but all my efforts were frustrated.  I most recently added the 'fact' tag here, and it was removed, again without satisfying the request, here.  Readers need to be able to verify that the word is not merely the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, it needs to be removed or attributed via an acceptable source.  What I don't understand is why a request to comply with one of Wikipedia's core policies is so vehemently resisted.  If the answer is as clear-cut as many suggest, then there should be no shortage of references to support it. -- de Facto (talk). 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the word has now been attributed. Are we all happy that the "Hey Mr. Green" column on the Sierra Club website is a reliable source? -- de Facto (talk). 14:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, anything to stop your trolling. Red Harvest (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)