Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal/Archive 3

Requested move 22 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move to Volkswagen emissions scandal per the naming policy on non-neutral but common titles. It appears there is clear consensus against the current title, and the "Volkswagen emissions scandal" was easily the best supported alternative. Further, it seems we have a firm consensus against the second proposed option, "Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy" - and more broadly, that including "diesel" in the title is unnecessary. Cúchullain t/ c 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Volkswagen common-rail TDI engine emissions scandal Volkswagen emissions violations → Volkswagen emissions scandal – Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION. Examples of common usgage: The Independent, Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press and NASDAQ See above for threaded discussion considering variations. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. --Light show (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. And we shouldn't be afraid to say "scandal", per WP:EUPHEMISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)‎
 * Oppose unless the word "diesel" is included. To date, the revelations regarding VW have been diesel-only, and removing the descriptor makes it unclear what kind of emission is being referenced. "Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal" is much clearer, in my view. Jus  da  fax   00:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If by that reasoning, we must specify diesel, then we also have to specify common-rail diesels, because not all VW diesels are affected. And then we're back to the original pointlessly long title. If there was the slightest reason to think that somehow the non-diesel portion of VW could escape this scandal untainted, you'd have a point, but it's all of VW that is under scrutiny here, so no harm in merely saying VW in the title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @24.151.10.165, Light show, Dennis Bratland, and Jusdafax: I changed the title to "Volkswagen emissions violation". As for "scandal", I wasn't aware of the RM. I'll leave this ongoing then. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. This was under consideration only a few hours. The title is now so vanilla you can't tell what the article is about. It now sounds like one car had a problem once. If your goal is to utterly minimize the scope of the event and the article, you couldn't have done better. Jus  da  fax   01:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a cause and effect issue. The scandalous rigging of test results led to the violations, which is the topic of the article. I like a good scandal as much as anyone, but in this case the word is sensational, even tabloidish, and is best used within the article to explain the cause. It may even cheapen the article to use it as a title, IMO. The fact that the MSM is using "scandal" makes sense since they feed on advertising and readership. But note: Automotive News, Car and Driver, Detroit Free Press, MSN. In any case, readers will read the lead and get the full picture. My 2 cents. Although I would definitely change "violation" to plural. --Light show (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a scandal. Sober, responsible news sources call it that. Wikipedia doesn't say "passed away" we say "died." Policing our language to avoid offending anyone's delicate sensibilities is against policy. If there were serious debate over whether or not VW's behavior was scandalous, you could argue neutrality. But here we must call a spade a spade, per WP:EUPHEMISM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jusdafax, I don't know whether you're referring to "violation" or "violations". But as said, I've pluralized "violation" with an 's' at the end. As for "scandal", do you favor it or "violations"? George Ho (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the magnitude to what VW has admitted to so far, I would say "scandal" describes the situation better. And "diesel," as I mentioned earlier, needs to be in there also, since this is a diesel-only scandal, at least as far as is now known. Here's a mainstream media take, courtesy of Popular Mechanics. Thanks. Jus  da  fax   05:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there was a similar exposure last year that didn't involve diesel. --Light show (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Overstating fuel mileage is nothing new, and it involves virtually all brands. It's been a problem for years, due mostly to self-certification. Overstating statistics, like horsepower or mpg, has always been a part of the car business. This thing that VW did is nothing like that; it's an elaborate deception of much broader scope and involving much more technical complexity. The only thing remotely comparable is shift blocking, though that involved no deception. It shows that everyone has bent over backwards to game tests as far as possible without actually cheating. Until now, certainly not on this scale. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I favor including "diesel", but worded the proposal without it as the preponderance of sources do not use it. (But see, e.g., Popular Mechanics, Bloomberg and Reuters) As for "scandal", almost all the sources have converged on that language. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be a reasonable move. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Seems an appropriate term - "Violations" just doesn't sound right, At the end of the day it's more scandal than violation. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Although the court of public opinion may have reached its own conclusion, VW has not been held liable for violating any laws. The title is therefore misleading and, at this time, inaccurate. Per Wikipedia policy, the title should change (see WP:NDESC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I originally closed this discussion as "Moved" as had obviously moved the article - Despite stating "Moved by VS" in the closing statement there was somehow confusion over it all so I reverted the close...  – Davey 2010 Talk 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: I support Volkswagen emissions testing scandal specifically because it is precise. If we go without "testing", it is unclear why the emissions are the scandal. The scandal was related to emissions testing. ViperSnake151   Talk  06:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Very weak Oppose for the use of "scandal" but would Support "controversy". It is more neutral, and I'm not sure the public outrage has reached scandal levels.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Kneel behind Zod is a blocked sockpuppet account.
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME See below.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our goal is to use accurate titles for article. I note that "google counts" are invariably not accurate - one has to page through to see just how wrong they can be :(  Collect (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is what the RS are calling it. Minor4th  16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Volkswagen emissions scandal. Ticks all the boxes for the best possible title. If the rules somehow have an issue with this, we need to later tweak the rules. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - While "scandal" always reeks of editorializing, the WP:COMMONNAME argument here is clear and overwhelming. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I clearly support 'scandal' over 'violations'; 'Volkswagen emissions testing scandal' is also good (more precise). Both titles would work equally well for me. Sb2s3 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per most of the above arguments. --John (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - we have a Watergate scandal and this affair is arguably bigger and more scandalous, having significant international impact, billions of dollars in stock losses, probably as much again in fines and costs. It's also a solid noun, rather than the wishy-washy "violations". I'd go further, I think, and call this Dieselgate scandal. --Pete (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Option 2
Change to Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy
 * Support. I agree with jusdafx about using diesel and think controversy is better suited. Scandal makes me think of sex and bribery.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As an accurate description of the controversy.   I would point out that "google counts" are notoriously inaccurate when one does an actual check through what it finds. Collect (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Accurate and direct. Very much about diesel and very much a scandal. Jus  da  fax   16:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Less concise. No need to include the word diesel in the title, as there's no other notable scandal or controversy surrounding Volkswagen emissions. Andrewa (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no evidence of any controversy -- a controversy is a public disagreement or dispute. We haven't cited anything that's under dispute; rather the government regulators, VW, and the reputable media all agree on the facts here. The only controversy is here on Wikipedia. Volkswagen emissions scandal is an accurate title with broad support. If it becomes necessary in the future to have more articles about other VW emissions scandals, we can disambiguate them by adding "diesel" or "zero point energy" or whatever it is to the title, but right now, per WP:PRECISION, that isn't needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Hate to say it, but I agree with Dennis Bratland. There's a pretty clear WP:PRECISION argument here, which would preclude us from including the word "diesel". NickCT (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The counterargument above is valid. I advise against the imprecise use of 'controversy'. Sb2s3 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for overprecision (the "diesel" is unnecessary unless a later news story brings up a separate concern over pollution-testing relating to gasoline/petrol-powered vehicles) and for imprecise use of "controversy". --John (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate closing move
User:Davey2010 closed with moved to a non-requested name which is the least common name. See Google News search count below.
 * "Volkswagen emissions scandal" 362.000  actual google number = 216
 * "Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal" 10.500 actual count 411
 * "Volkswagen emissions testing scandal" 374 137
 * "Volkswagen emissions violations" 7
 * "Volkswagen diesel emissions controversy" 0
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - As stated above I haven't moved the article .... I've just closed the discussion, Any issues with the move should be discussed with the actual mover. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I revised my comment.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Actual google counts added for first two examples given. Collect (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Although this is not the right place to discuss this matter, the last page theory is not so reliable as you think. Yes the Google reference manual says the last page shows the actual number. However a web search for "microsoft" returns only 287 (varies on search) from 1,060,000,000 estimated count. I think when we compare relative counts, an estimated count in the first page may be better.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- no. When Google first says 2 gazillion hits -- and then only shows 25, the likelihood that the 2 gazillion figure is wrong is quite high.  I suggest that a claim that over a  billion pages are substantive hits for "Microsoft" fails, and that the words "relevant results" is what counts - Google does not blindly give you every site where the word is used at all.  If I choose "show all sites" it hits the maximum of 1000 easily (Google assumes no one really needs or wants more than 1000 results, by the way).   Do you see the word "relevant" as Google uses it?   That "first figure" is nicely useless entirely, and always has been. Collect (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mechanism of Action
Perhaps this may seem like a minor thing, but, I am quite interested in the *how* rather than the why at this point. Sure, it detected a few minor things and probably hooked it up into a bit of code in the ECU, but what are the 'triggers', persay? If anyone has some information, I request it be added into the article, perhaps into it's own section. OC39648 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It'll probably come out eventually, but AFAIK nobody is too concerned about the details. The exact testing procedure is specific and formalized in the interest of producing repeatable results.  Everyone agrees that it's easy to detect with a modern sensor-laden car if you try. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I, like many other geeky folk, am interested in the details. This sort of thing is fascinating. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes that something like that would be more encyclopedic and maybe ultimately more useful to our readers than atacking WV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Data transposition in table, "NOx numbers for VW Passat and Jetta"
In the table noted, column, "WVU measurement", the figures shown are transposed between the Jetta and the Passat. Reference, WVU's "In-Use Emissions Testing of Light-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States ", page 89. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.39.71 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's fixed now but please check, and add more numbers - the more eyes, the better. Page 89 is graph, not numbers. TGCP (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Perspective
According to the EPA, in the US, a full size diesel pickup or van produces more NOx per km than the high end of the range measured for the Passat. I realize they are not held to same emmissions standards, but it does give perspective - how many full size diesel trucks were sold in the same time period as VW TDI's? I'm not sure where this should be noted. RickH86 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * US regulations are a compromise between different political factions. There are several instances where light trucks and SUVs get tax breaks, loose fuel economy standards and emissions breaks, mostly aimed at benefitting farmers and small businesses. The question is, do we have sources who say it's relevant? Otherwise it's wp:FRANKENSTEIN, much like the UN example in the guidelines. You're on record that this case is overhyped by the media, so you should be careful not to push that personal opinion into the article lacking any sources to support it. If you can find a relevant expert who sees things this way, then by all means put it in an appropriate response/reaction section. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the numbers, but this seems to say the opposite: VW pollutes like 20 trucks Maybe it depends on whether you measure NOx or particulates, and what model year. TGCP (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The numbers in that Computerworld analysis seem very iffy to me. If the engines emitted a maximum of 40 times the NOx standard - and that only under acceleration - then how does Computerworld work out that they produce 175 times as much? That just doesn't add up. I'm calling bullshit on that right there. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's 175*promise; the promise was 0.04g/mile when limit (standard) was 0.20g/mi so 5*35=175 . It shows that crunching the numbers is better than gut feeling. The 0.084kg/year and the other numbers I cannot check. Source seems to be http://www.autolist.com/about-us TGCP (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems from section "Emission standards" that limit was 0.07g/mi, not 0.20 - so maybe 50*promise and 6*truck, and Klein crunched the wrong numbers. The ref may be invalid, but the point remains. Unclear which limits were in effect when; such numbers should be in the article. TGCP (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"The calculations should be put in context of air that is getting dramatically cleaner in the United States, experts said. Also, the deaths from extra pollution are dwarfed by the 35,000 people in the U.S. a year who die in auto accidents and are closer to the annual U.S. death toll of spider or snake bites."

Discuss. --John (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you consider this opinion piece reliable then surely you agree with language like "VW pollution dodge" and "Volkswagen's pollution-control chicanery". Are "dodge" and "chicanery" encyclopedic words? This line of reasoning is seriously flawed anyway: Can I murder one person per year and say it's really not as bad as it sounds because more people die in accidental swimming pool drownings? The 35,000 people killed in car crashes are mostly unintentional, and in those car crashes where we have the driver admitting they deliberately violated the law for personal gain, we send them to jail. Snakebites are pure accident. A much more appropriate comparison would be to compare this with the estimated deaths from other illegal pollution schemes, such as unauthorized waste dumps or the two very similar defeat device cases, the GM Cadillacs in 1991-1995 or the seven heavy truck manufacturers a few years later.But yes, please go ahead and compare these estimated deaths to car crashes or snake bites in an appropriate section with the opinions of expert sources, like the reaction section. Although I'm still baffled as to how this AP analyiss is meets our standards when it makes VW's negligent deaths look small, but doesn't meet our standards when they use "inflammatory" language like "dodge" and "chicanery". I call that cherry-picking. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're trying to pin actual deaths on VW, then we can't just guess. That's synthesis. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I am not sure about the value of the source either. It was one of those supporting the projected death figures in the lead, which is where I took it from. My point was, we cannot use sources of dubious neutrality, cherrypick one sided arguments from them, then portray this in Wikipedia's voice as a neutral summary. If the source says something, makes the uncertainty clear, then points out the positive background that this contrasts with, we cannot just quote the number. All statistics come with uncertainty, and in this case the spread of estimates makes it clear that there is great uncertainty. I agree with removing these numbers for now while we discuss. The article cannot just say "VW killed between x and y people" without showing the nuance attached to statistics like these. --John (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They are worse than that, when huge populations are involved these claims need to be very carefully worked out. People make all sorts of claims like this, for example that nuclear power kills XXX people a year.  Maybe it does but you you have to compare it with the number of people who would be killed by generating the same power by other means, or by not generating the power at all. In the Fukushima accident more people were killed by the stress of being evacuated from their homes than would have died had they stayed put


 * In this case a proper answer to the question would need a calculation of how many people might have been killed by WV not fixing their emissions figures. When such large populations are involved even tiny effects can cause deaths.  The stress of falling VW profits, for example.  The figure given is just a misuse of statistics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of this kind of stuff belongs on other articles. There's been a debate going on for decades as to what the best pollution control strategies are, what the best intermediate steps are, whether economic costs of one technology over another are worth it. A lot of these statistics are trying to recast VW's cheat as some kind of civil disobedience because they believed the policy decisions behind NOx limits were unfair. Here is one misinformed lunatic fringe editorialist/blogger who actually thinks something like that. But in reality it was nothing of the kind -- sure there are plenty of flaws in government policies, but those flaws are not why VW gamed the tests.Broad articles like Air pollution are the best place to put discussion of the trade offs between X hypothetical lives lost vs Y dollars spent on pollution control. This scandal article is far more tightly focused than that.If a much larger number of sources begin writing comparisons like the AP of, like, how many died at the hands of Genghis Khan vs VW or whatever, then the case can be made that the numbers are comparable. Same thing for the idea that began this, that full size diesel pickups legally emit more pollution than VW's cars did illegally, though you'd have to factor in the dispersal of that pollution in rural areas where it has little effect on human health, which explains the US NOx policy to a large extent (plus each unpopulated rural state has 2 senators, same as California). But wait for the sources first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

EA288 from MY 2015
I've tried to add specific mention of the EA288 engine type in the summary because it seemed the only place it could fit well, due to the numbers quoted by VW. Yes, there may be a better place for it. But I object to it being removed entirely, and labeled "fussy details". It is an extremely importantly detail, because: VW USA, when admitting to the fraud, included in the admission (like the EPA had in the accusation) the 2015 models which all had the EA288 engine. VW in Germany declared (and all the media are trumpeting it) "only Euro-5 cars are affected"/"only EA189 engines are affected" whereas "Euro 6 cars are not affected". This stuck in my craw for a while, making it sound as though "Euro 6" was an engine feature and not a compliance limit - we're talking about the pretense of passing emissions tests, so what magically makes an engine pass even the harder Euro 6 test? I finally looked it up and found that "Euro 6" in this context simply means EA288 - which is why it matters: even as VW acts all shocked, it took them 5 minutes to look up the (actual) emissions numbers and declare the (much cleaner) EA288 fit for Euro 6 but not for the EPA limits. More interestingly, you'll find this nowhere in the press, because the US press (and other interested people in the US), if they even hear of the "Euro 6" part, assume it's some different engine, whereas the German press is in lockstep declaring that only the EA189 is affected and only it is installed in the US. (I tried to fix the relevant German WP articles and was told, in each case, that it wasn't so. They refuse to read English references, apparently. A lone VW announcement from 2014 announcing the EA288 in 2015 models was derided as "it must be time travel", as though it had to be post-scandal reveal.) These are probably the same people that think that this is all trumped up by US competitors who are afraid of VW's 2% marketshare. 143.116.116.91 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All problematic cars be fixed ?
What can this mean? Do we know?

A real fix would be to make the cars meet the emission standards all the time whilst still maintaining the origial performance spec. Is that what VW say that they will do? If this is not what they are doing we should remove and comment about 'fixing' the cars as it is misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's far too soon to tell to which level which cars will be changed, if any. What we can do, is quote what sources say. If need be, there are probably sources which say that these levels are yet to be determined. TGCP (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. From an engineering point of view it is probably impossible to deliver legal emissions AND the performance and mpg that is obtained with the emissions controls disabled, with the same strategy and calibration, without a fundamental redesign of the engine. The basic reason is that good performance and mpg imply high combustion temperatures which imply lots of NOx.Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We should accurately summarize VW'S promise. If they say "all cars will be fixed" (or whatever their words are) then we can say that and attribute it to VW. Several sources have expressed skepticism that this is possible (e.g. in the US Congressional hearings), and we can cite their opinions. Those who don't believe VW can deliver on this promise are either hinting or stating outright that the repair from VW must be accompanied by a cash payment to the car owner to compensate for the inevitable (they predict) loss of performance.Both points of view are speculation about the future, so we shouldn't dwell on it much. Just mention each side's opinion briefly and then patiently wait to see what develops. The world will know soon enough if VW's repair will entail a loss of performance, and since this is not a news article we don't need to rush to get something out there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for using the word "fix"; I changed that to the more directly translated "in order" but that was removed - I don't see what's wrong with that ? In the UK, the words "rectify the issue" are being used. Either way, these words are imprecise, but that is what we have so far. The removed text was covering whether the cars will ALL be recalled for service, or just the ones that owners feel like sending to the workshop, leaving a number of cars still polluting. That issue is notable, and should be covered. TGCP (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As actual controversies emerge, the neutrality violations in this article grow worse
Since the creation of this article, a fervent group of editors has insisted that we cannot write this article in the same tone as our sources. That there are predetermined limits on what Wikipedia may say, with no regard to sources. WP:WikiVoice says this is against policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." So when all of our sources assert the following facts: These Wikipedia editors have rewritten what our sources tell us to create a false sense of doubt over these uncontroversial facts. They mistakenly apply the WP:BLP policy to a corporation that is in no way a living person, and we confuse criminal offenses with civil violations. It all gets mushed together in one mealy-mouthed blur, devoid of nuance.
 * VW deliberately cheated on emissions testing
 * VW lied to investigators to hide this cheating
 * Both the lying and the cheating are illegal

And now, actual controversy have emerged. Some examples of issues under dispute: This is only the beginning. The problem now is that while Wikipedia must carefully avoid bias in describing these actual controversies, and instead must take a reserved tone that attributes these assertions to the voice of the parties making them, we have used the same skeptical voice to describe the uncontroversial facts that all parties agree on. This is the problem of false equivalency, treating known facts and open questions equally to create distorted view of reality. The neutral point of view policy, not to mention WP:NOR and WP:V have addressed this numerous times. WP:ASSERT addresses this. We've dealt with anti-science partisans who want to erase the difference between well-established scientific facts and open questions on the frontiers of science, in order to carry out a political agenda.This is a problem today, and this violation of NPOV is getting worse every day more controversies are added to the case. The longer it goes on, the less neutral this article becomes. The solution, as it has always been, is to trust our sources. If we're willing to cite them at all, then we must be willing to cite them fully and not screen out words and impressions that fail some arbitrary filter that goes under the name "encyclopedic". Policy says we don't second-guess our sources. When we do create false doubt, then we lose the distinction between facts and opinions. Everything looks like mere opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did VW executives know about the cheating? Matthias Müller and Michael Horn say it was low level employees, "a couple of software engineers who put this in for whatever reason", while members of congress and others are skeptical.
 * Is it acceptable to offer no firm deadline for repairing the recalled cars? Members of congress criticized VW for a lack of a firm date, VW feels is it sufficient.
 * Also, VW says buying back cars is off the table, others disagree.
 * Was VW evangelizing for diesel at the expense of other technologies, unfairly seeking incentives, etc? Was diesel ever the green technology VW says it is?
 * More generally, is VW's damage-control strategy effective?
 * What are the competing assertions of the hundreds of multiplying lawsuits against VW? Can each of these suits have equal merit? Obviously there will be many competing voices with different opinions on these questions.
 * The reason that we have a filter called 'encyclopedic' is that we are writing an encyclopedia. This is not a news channel.


 * You mention some unanswered questions. These are not suitable for an encyclopdia.  When we get some answers then maybe some of them should go in here.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If unanswered questions are unencyclopedic, why do we have Featured Articles like Problem of Apollonius? Or Definition of planet? There is no basis for your assertion that these controversies don't belong on Wikipedia. We'd delete 80% of the encyclopedia if you couldn't mention anything where there was disagreement. WP:NOTNEWS excludes articles about short-lived events, but says nothing whatsoever about expunging controversial facts from valid articles. The definition of "encyclopedic" you're using is found nowhere in any policy or guideline. We have numerous Featured Articles that describe historical events, and there is no filter in place that excludes controversial questions. See United States Senate election in California, 1950 or Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng or Mitt Romney. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What are contoversial facts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful to play word games. We should be working to resolve this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not playing any games. I do not know what you mean by 'conytroversial facts'.  To my mind facts are facts.  If they are undisputed then we can state them as fact; if they are controversial then they are not facts but opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You mention:

We have 'The company had programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing'. What else do we need to say?
 * VW deliberately cheated on emissions testing

We have, 'According to the EPA, Volkswagen had insisted for a year before the outbreak of the scandal that discrepancies were mere technical glitches.[59] Volkswagen only fully acknowledged that they had manipulated the vehicle emission tests after being confronted with evidence regarding the "defeat device"'. So we already have that, but in more detail.
 * VW lied to investigators to hide this cheating

WE have, 'Olaf Lies, a Volkswagen board member and economy minister of Lower Saxony, later told the BBC that the people "who allowed this to happen, or who made the decision to install this software" acted criminally, and must be held personally accountable'. What exactly do you think needs to be added? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the lying and the cheating are illegal
 * Numerous editors have had clear language reverted to vauge, wordy constructs that bury the plain facts. The sentence "Volkswagen was caught illegally cheating on emissions tests" matches our sources. "The company had programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing" does not say "Volkswagen was caught cheating" -- it buries the fact that they evaded justice for over a year, plus the proceeding five years of overt deception. It takes "cheating" and calls it "programming"; it lets readers think VW met the letter of the law by passing the tests. It's highly misleading. The article history is filled with these reverts and biased rewrites. The real smoking gun is Volkswagen emissions scandal, and Defeat device where my "unencyclopedic" writing style (i.e. I humbly follow the sources) is suddenly OK because in those areas I'm helping mitigate the damage to VW. The misuse of the word "encyclopedic" and the misuse of "NOTNEWS" has enabled tendentious POV pushing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we say "[t]he company had used fraudulent programming on their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection [...]"? Sb2s3 (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a step in the right direction. The problem with "fraudulent" is that it implies fraud which is a different crime, and it can be read to mean the programming was not programming; it was something else disguised as programming? There's no rational reason to say "cheat" is off limits. And we need to stop burying the fact that they concealed this for 5 years, and spent a year actively evading law enforcement. That's what "VW was caught" means. The red herring claim that certain words are verboten because they're "tabloid" or "sensationalist" has no basis. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, an alternative would be to use some variant of 'deceptive'. In any case, we should be careful not to waste our time playing word games. I think it is safe to assume by now that the general public knows what this scandal is essentially about (cheating on emissions testing.). I do agree that the first phrase could slightly be improved. I don't think 'cheat' should be off-limits, but, as with 'caught', the term is difficult to use without sounding unnecessarily emotive or colloquial (feel free to propose ideas). Another solution would be to rename the whole article 'Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal'. Sb2s3 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have wording that states the facts perfectly clearly; nothing is hidden. We say, 'The company had programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing'.  We then say 'According to the EPA, Volkswagen had insisted for a year before the outbreak of the scandal that discrepancies were mere technical glitches. Volkswagen only fully acknowledged that they had manipulated the vehicle emission tests after being confronted with evidence regarding the "defeat device"' Those  are 'the plain facts'.  In what way are they burried? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I similarly don't think we've buried the facts. I am, however, assuming good faith from editor Dennis Bratland and agree that we could improve the first phrase by more clearly referring to VW's cheating. I believe this point can easily be addressed with minor interventions, e.g. "[t]he company had used deceptive programming in their model year 2009 through 2015 [...] engines". For me, such a change would resolve the whole issue. Sb2s3 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with, emotive and unencyclopedic (I mean language that you would not find in this context in a quality written encyclopeia like Brittanica or Chambers) words like 'cheating' and 'deceptive' is that they require a degree of interpretation. Who exactly is being cheated or decieved, to what degree was that action intentional, to what degree was it justified, to what degree is it standard or common practice?  It is possible to argue that the answers to these questions in this case are obvious to everyone.  In that case we have no need to use these emotive terms; the bare facts clearly speak for themselves.  If it is not obvious to everyone, using these terms is just the interpretation of editors here and has no place in Wikipedia.


 * If reliable sources use these terms we still have to take care when we use them. In my opinion it is fine to use the language of neutral agencies.  I would support using the language of the EPA for example, so long as it is attributed.  Newspapers, on the other hand are a completely different matter.  For simple matters of fact, quality newspapers are fine, but we should not copy their language.  The language used in all newspapers is designed to attract attention and sell newspapers, to change public opinion, and to push the political POV of the particular paper. We all know that the simple fact of, say, welfare cuts, would be reported in completely different ways, using completely different language, in different newspapers, even those of the highest quality.  The facts are NPOV the language is POV.


 * Our purpose is not to change public opinion, punish wrongdoers, or bring what we consider important matters to public attention or even to support the opinions of newspapers.  It is to inform our readers, in encyclopedic language, of verifiable facts, supported by reliable sources. The language of newspapers is not appropriate for this purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The language affirmed by a VW executive testifying under oath should be reasonable, thus programs installed for the "express purpose of beating tests" should be fine. See NPR ("Responding to a question from panel chairman Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., about whether the software was installed 'for the express purpose of beating tests,' Horn responds that to his knowledge, 'It was installed for this purpose, yes.'") 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in using this souce appropriately but we should not add a separate quote. We should incorprate the content into existing text.  We could say (proposed additions in brackets), 'The company had (intentionally) programmed their model year 2009 through 2015 turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engine so that US standards nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions were met only during laboratory emissions testing (in order to beat emisions tests)'.  My personal opinion on this is that the addition of the word 'intentionally' is justified and useful as it removes the possible interpretation that the offending programming had been done accidentaly.  I do not think that 'in order to beat emisions tests' adds anything.  'To beat emissions tests' is not particularly clear wording and it is hard to see what else the reason could be for the programming actions.  If more explanation is considered necesary, I think it would be better to spell it out more clearly, with something like, 'so that cars that emitted levels of polutants above the test limits during normal use would pass the emissions tests when tested'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the use of 'intentionally', as proposed above. The rest of the suggestions seem optional to me, at this point. Sb2s3 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made the change as no one has objected here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the slight improvements, but we continue to have an article whose overall tone matches non-existent sources. While the rest of the world agrees that Paris is the capital of France, this article speaks of it with an aloofness, suggesting that it's still an open question whether France even has a capital. The WP:NPOV policy prohibits treating facts as opinion. If we say it's a fact Volkswagen claims the TDI engine is 2.0 liters (not 2.1, not 1.5), why don't we say it's a fact that they deliberately cheated and actively concealed the cheating for 5+ years, and actively deceived law enforcement for 15 months?It isn't just this one article. There's a core group of editors who think "encyclopedic" means certain arbitrarily-chosen types of facts get treated skeptically, and certain unusual events get toned down to make them seem less unusual. The problem with that kind of bias is that it is arbitrary; not all facts are toned down. Not all unusual events are given an air of uncertainty; only certain ones, and the choice of which kinds of events are called into question is entirely in the minds of editors. You have Standard English words rejected as "unencyclopdic" without any reference to sources at all. Editors know without even seeing the sources that "you can't say that on Wikipedia". All of which is expressly prohibited by WP:NPOV, which tells you to conform to the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Recall
These sources explain the difference and importance between voluntary and forced recalls, and offers comments. The Bloomberg and FT cannot be archived, but shows a wider perspective of setting precedence. EPA will test VWs fix, and if sufficient, order recall .. aaand ze German sauce That should be sufficient for covering the recall issue, with the "fix" issue to be dealt with later. The owner issue is probably part of why KBA ordered the forced recall, as that means no stragglers. TGCP (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As there was some controversy over the words for the recall, here is a suggestion to debate (blend text with current recall line) : -

VW suggested in the beginning of October to let car owners decide whether their cars would be recalled for handling.

However, the KBA views the software as illegal, and has ordered a full recall of all affected cars in Germany. VW then decided to recall around 8.5 million cars in Europe, about a third of all its car deliveries since 2009. KBA requires VW to send a recall plan to KBA before the end of October for 2.0 liter cars, and end of November for 1.2 and 1.6 liter cars. If KBA approves a plan, VW can then start handling the cars. The German authorities require that VW removes the software and that VW ensures that emission rules are fulfilled. Media estimates that the KBA procedure sets a precedence for how authorities in other countries handle the case. TGCP (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)