Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal/Archive 4

RfC: Illegality?
Volkswagen has admitted that it mislead testers by using software in its TDi diesel engines that turned on NOx emission reduction systems during static dynamometer testing that were normally left inactive. The US EPA Issued a notice of violation describing the measures Volkswagen took to mislead testing and compliance with the Clean Air Act. The EPA lists "Alleged Violations" on page 3. However, Volkswagen has not (yet) been called to any US court, and the EPA has not declared that there has been illegal behaviour on the part of Volkswagen.

Some media sources have declared that Volkswagen was guilty of illegal acts, and these sources are being used to state in Wikipedia that Volkswagen committed illegal acts.

Should Wikipedia: --Pete (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Declare in its own voice that Volkswagen acted illegally?
 * Hedge any declarations by using the word "alleged" or "allegedly" or similar, as the EPA has done?
 * Say nothing about 'guilty' or 'illegal' in Wikipedia's voice but report fairly the claims made by various reliable sources in the voice of those sources.
 * Wait for actual court proceedings to occur before passing judgement?


 *  Object to format of RfC You left out "say nothing about 'guilty' or 'illegal' in Wikipedia's voice but report fairly the claims made by various reliable sources in the voice of those sources." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added that as an option. Feel free to edit the wording, if you wish. --Pete (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Say nothing about "guilty" or "illegal" in Wikipedia's voice but report fairly the claims made by various reliable sources in the voice of those sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment (having seen post at the Law wikiproject) It should stick to the sources as closely as possible which is that the EPA alleged a violation which VW subsequently admitted in public statements. To me, that is appropriate encyclopedic language. To speak of VW acting "illegally" is journalese oversimplification. For one thing "illegal" is ambiguous and could be taken as indicating criminality. Also, due process has yet to be completed. There is a difference in a high level generalised admission in the press and final determination detailing what the wrong doing actually was in detail. One other point: we should be very circumspect in using journalists when using them as sources to analyse the legal position in a "hot" news story. Rarely are they WP:RS in this context - including reports in otherwise impeccable RS news outlets with global reputations. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC doesn't seem like the best way forward. If six clueless noobs all post "Support: Volkswagen are guilty, guilty, guilty", it doesn't negate NPOV, which still insists we wait for someone authoritative (not the prosecuting agency, a Wikipedia editor, or some blog) to make the determination. You know, like a court or something. And even if, down the line, this happens, it still isn't good style. An article which starts off looks like it was written by an undergraduate. Our article on the Holocaust does not begin "The Holocaust was an illegal genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators." Our article on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy does not begin "John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was illegally assassinated at 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (18:30 UTC) on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas." Our article on waterboarding does not begin "Waterboarding is an illegal form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning." That's because, as a neutrally edited tertiary source, we do not make such judgements. We report the facts. If VW are judged to have broken the law, we can and should report which law they have been judged to have broken. "Illegally" is almost never good language and in this instance merely functions as a flag to other editors for those who should not be editing the article. It does our readers no service at all and we should not even be discussing using it. --John (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Declare" Option & Propose Renaming Article: I found my way here from the post at WT:LAW. As other editors have indicated, there have been no formal findings of any illegal acts on the part of VW. All we know right now is that the EPA has brought formal allegations and the company made an admission that they "violated the trust of their customers." I think it is okay to say VW has been "accused" of wrongdoing, like the author of this NYT article does, but we must be very careful not to make our own WP:SYNTH findings about VW's guilt. We only report what other reliable sources say. Even when courts or administrative tribunals rule that a party is guilty, I think the general practice on WIkipedia is to write "the court found X party guilty of Y act," rather than declare outright that "X was guilty of Y." The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report on actions of parties and subsequent findings in court, rather than to make normative statements about the "blameworthiness" of a party. In that respect, I think the title of this article is potentially misleading because it implies that VW actually committed violations. Per WP:NDESC, we may want to change the title to say "Volkswagen Emissions Violations Allegations" or something like that. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The misleading wording of this RfC is yet another example of tendentious editing by Skyring (or Pete for some damn reason. I won't even get started on the appalling behavior of John -- and Admin who should know better). The statement "Volkswagen has not (yet) been called to any US court" blithely ignores, yet again, the fact that the EPA can autonomously adjudicate this type of case. Instead of attempting to refute or even address these well-cited facts, Skyring is instead misleading more editors with his own false assumptions. This behavior is disruptive. The option "wait for the court proceeding" makes the false assumption that there is a court proceeding in the works. The Justice Department is investigating -- it is entirely possible they will never file charges for whatever reason. In that event, the EPA's Notice of Violation is still legally binding, the recall is still mandatory, and the finding of fact that they broke the law is still in effect. There is no pending court case to decide if they did it or didn't do it.You have an obligation to at least acknowledge the well-sourced evidence you have been given. On top of this, these statements do nothing to address or refute the dozens of highly reputable sources which have said Volkswagen was caught illegally cheating. Instead, we are supposed to fabricate our own version of this story, based on zero sources which cast doubt on well-cited facts. If we at least had some random blogger or a horde of Twitter minions pushing this radically skeptical version of the VW story, we could dismiss it as a fringe theory, or mention it at the bottom of the article. But it's not even a fringe theory; Wikipedia editors alone are the sole source of the "maybe-they-didn't-break-the-law" theory. That makes it original research. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day; say what the sources say.If you want to argue some other position, cite something, please? All I see are editors spouting canned speeches about guilt and innocence and they seem to care nothing for the facts of this case, or the facts of how enforcement agencies in the US execute the law. Words like "cheat" or "caught" are rejected out of hand, in an utterly arbitrary way, with no reference to the sources. There is a prejudiced filter in operation where the rule is "you can't say that on Wikipedia -- ever -- reliable sources be damned." It's POV pushing disguised as neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a comment here based on my own experience in disputes. Statements like 'The misleading wording of this RfC' and reference to 'tendentious editing' and 'appalling behavior' are not helpful and in my opinion constitute abuse.  For whatever reason, an editor has instigated an RfC, which is the only concrete way we have of resolving content disputes; it what we are meant to do when there is an intractable disagreement.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding several things here. Firstly, we are not a tabloid. We don't use journalistic language. As was said earlier we say "x was found by the court" "Y was convicted of the offence of..." etc. We don't say "x is a demented murderer". So the first point is about encyclopedic style. The second point is that the NOV is the start of the process not the final conclusion. Due process has yet to be gone through, even if it doesn't involve a court decision. See this, for instance. You will notice in the VW NOV that the EPA are careful to refer to "allegations" and that they will be referring it to the DoJ for enforcement action. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT, NPR, Reuters, CNBC, WaPo, etc etc (I've linked to them many times -- scroll up) are not tabloids either. If you consider them tabloids, then you're casting doubut on virtually the whole article. We might as well have no article -- we might as well delete several hundred thousand Wikipedia articles -- if all of a sudden these are "tabloids" that we can't trust.And still you cite nothing to refute what the many reliable sources -- what you call tabloids -- have said: Volkswagen got caught illegally cheating. Can you please cite any other non-tabloid source that we should rely on instead? NYT, NPR, Reuters, CNBC, WaPo, Fortune, Forbes, Businessweek, AutoWeek -- they're all tabloids. Fine. Have it your way. Who do you trust then?As far as not being final, nothing is final until you get to the Supreme Court. But this is the first conviction. They have been found guilty of a civil violation in a non-judicial administrative process. The IRS, FCC, SEC and other agencies all do this. It's what fuels the paranoia of a lot of anti-government kooks, but there it is. You can be convicted of X but still have the potential to appeal -- that doesn't mean you're not convicted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , there are two things you have wrong here. First, all the sources listed above say that VW is "accused" of violations or that VW "allegedly" violated laws. Second, an NOV from the EPA is not a finding of wrongdoing; it is simply an allegation of wrongdoing. The EPA's website explains that "NOVs are not a final EPA determination that a violation has occurred". I think everyone would here is fine with saying that VW is "accused" of acting illegally, but until we have an official determination from a tribunal, we should not say "VW acted illegally." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from DeCausa's source above. It's not final in the sense that the EPA could go after VW more if they want to -- they're not required to stop just because of the NOV. VW could appeal enforcement actions, but the legal decision of law violation has happened. The NYT, NPR, Reuters, et. al. have a little bit of experience with US law, and they know what libel is an isn't. They all say this was illegal and they know what they're doing. Still nobody can offer a non-"tabloid" [sic] source to refute what everybody else says is a fact. This is false equivalence balancing what every authority says with what nobody has said.Hey, I'm really grateful that at last we're actually discussing the law of this case and not just reciting speeches about innocence and guilt based on what somebody saw on a cops and robbers TV show. If we can at least act like the specifics of this case matter then I'm moderately satisfied. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , an EPA NOV is not reviewable under the APA (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)) because they only include allegations, rather than legal conclusions. Courts have consistently explained that “[The agency’s] initial ‘finding’ marks only the beginning of a process designed to test the accuracy of the agency’s initial conclusions.” (Sierra Club v. EPA, 557 F.3d 401, 408 (6th Cir. 2009) (modified language in original).) This recent Fifth Circuit opinion described NOVs as "intermediate," "inconclusive" documents and explained that "a notice does not itself determine [a party's] rights or obligations, and no legal consequences flow from the issuance of the notice." Therefore, we should still use the word "accused" or "alleged" when describing any wrongdoing on the part of VW. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can respect that opinion because it's based on something, but in general I think we should avoid interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources this way -- "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I think we have consensus among a crushing majority of reputable secondary sources that they acted illegally. We haven't mentioned their formal admission of guilt, by the way. Secondary sources surely have taken that into account as well, in declaring it illegal, in their own voice, without qualification or hedging.No respect at all for the you-can't-ever-say-that-on-Wikipedia-ever-no-matter-what school. That's prejudicial, and it's time we stopped that practice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources do not say they acted illegally "without qualification." Rather, the sources you listed above simply report that VW has been "accused" of violations or that VW "allegedly" committed violations. The article in the Guardian says "The EPA accused Volkswagen" of wrongdoing. The NYT article says VW was "accused". The Washington Post articles said VW was "alleged" to have committed violations. The Wired articles says "The EPA is accusing Volkswagen of illegally using software". Likewise, we should use the word "alleged" or "accused," just as the sources do. As for VW's admission, it appears that all the sources discussing the admission to the EPA and CARB all cite the EPA NOV. As for the disclosure about EU emissions standards, I didn't see any admission of wrongdoing. Taking all these factors into account, I think we can fairly say VW "misled" or "deceived" regulators, but we should qualify any mention of "illegal" activity with the word "alleged" or "accused." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. So the lead should say "In September 2015, German car maker Volkswagen AG was caught using software allegedly designed to illegally cheat on US emissions tests for almost 500,000 of its model year 2009 through 2015 diesel engine Volkswagen and Audi cars"? I can support that, or something like it. I especially like the fact that it is based on what our sources say and not an pre-determined formula of what all Wikipedia articles must say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that you "can support that, or something like it", but the problem is that pretty much everyone else who has responded to this RfC -- including a bunch of new voices who came here from Wikiproject Law -- don't support it. And snarky comments about those of us who, in all good-faith, interpret Wikipedia's policies as never allowing an accusation to be turned into a finding of illegal activity in Wikipedia's voice are not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's good faith to get on a soapbox and blow hot air endlessly without citing a single thing. I think it's disruptive, and I think wrapping your self up in a self-righteous cloak of neutrality and never admitting that the net effect is to support one side over others is disruptive and tendentious. This "boring, encyclopedic" pseudo-neutrality is partisan; making it boring and mealy-mouthed carries water for VW, and harms the public interest, car consumers, VW's competitors, and many others. Good faith neutrality would balance all sides, not merely worry about VW's reputation, and nothing else. I have found in this discussion, as with many others in the past, that it's easy to find common ground with those who confine themselves to assertions they explicitly back up with citations. It's impossible to deal with editors who try to defy gravity, floating on a mist of rhetoric without a single citation to justify it. It turns out there is some support for a compromise position, but look how much time was wasted by editors who refused, after being repeatedly begged to do so, to cite anything? Notecardforfree and DeCausa are the only ones willing to move this closer to a resolution, rather than using voting,  bluster and even bullying to get their way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, there is a reason that people use the word 'encyclopedic' here and that is the fact that we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia not engaging in investigative journalism, punishing wrongdoers, or bringing bad deeds to the attention of the public. There may be places where those are the aims but this is not one of them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jump on down to to see an example of investigative journalism -- trying to invent hypothetical equivalencies to help minimize the magnitude of VW's pollution violations. That's a clear case of trying to bring something to the public's attention that is not found in any sources.It's really bizarre to be accused of doing anything of the kind when every step of the way I've been saying policy requires that we closely match the tone, wording and emphasis of our sources. Not some fabricated tone and wording found in no sources. If CNN, the BBC, the NYT, WaPo, etc are "tabloids"  then we shouldn't be citing them at all. Labeling them "tabloids" simply because a few editors want to invent their own arbitrary POV they want to tell this story from is disingenuous. You can't call them tabloids then turn around and cite the very same "tabloids" for cherry-picked facts that serve your agenda. Either cite them faithfully or don't cite them at all.It's also disingenuous for you to pretend you're the adult in the room here and lecture me about "investigative journalism, punishing wrongdoers, or bringing bad deeds to the attention of the public". I'm asking to tell the same story here that the public has already been told by reputable sources. I'm pointing out that watering down the facts in our sources to benefit VW is not conservative or cautious, it's partisan and it harms other parties involved in this case. The definition of "encyclopedic" contains nothing about taking the story from all of our best sources and rewriting that with a unique tone found nowhere else. Encyclopedic does not mean an alien POV, it means a neutral POV, balanced between the different approaches of our sources, not outside the range of our sources. How come none of these guys have gone to Volkswagen emissions scandal and watered down the language to make it sound more "encyclopedic"? They have no problem with matching the tone of the cited sources when that tone helps to make VW not look so bad. No need for mealy-mouthed phrasing when it serves the cause, it seems.You should go lecture the editors who have only ever edited this article to push the bias in only one direction, never to balance it, and who have repeatedly made threats against anyone who stood up to them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your assertions concerning my motivations and your interpretation of Wikipedia policy to be totally without merit, and your insults ("soapbox, blow hot air endlessly, self-righteous, boring, mealy-mouthed") to be a clear violation of WP:NPA and a clear indication that you consider this to be a WP:BATTLEFIELD. For that reason I am going to stop responding to you. I advise you to control your behavior before you get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What you said right there, that the bullying I was referring to. Instead of considering there's a problem with this type of pseudo-neutrality, and especially with your lack of citations, you instead resort to unfounded threats of blocks. John was the first to to reach for this bludgeon. Imagine how much better it would work to go and do research and return with cited facts, instead of making threats. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. You should not consider these threats warnings unfounded. I'm assembling evidence to present at ANI regarding your conduct here.
 * 2. Please focus on content. Stick to the topic, we'll be good, there'll be no need for intervention, we'll work out content and wording together as per wikiprocess. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that continued discussion will lead to some kind of resolution, but we need to assume good faith and not accuse each other of coming here with ulterior motives. We all want to build an encyclopedia that accurately describes events that have transpired, while avoiding language that implies normative judgments about a party's behavior. With regard to the proposed language above, I still think there is room for improvement. I know there is ongoing discussion about the word "caught," but I don't think it is appropriate here. Why not say something like: "In September 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice in which they alleged Volkswagen falsified data during emissions tests between 2009 and 2015"? Wouldn't that be a simpler and more neutral description of the events that have transpired? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like some people don't care for discussion so they just go right ahead and edit however they like. Ironic to not even care about the outcome of your own RfC.Anyway, the problem with "falsified data" is that it sounds like VW manipulated the post-test results somehow. They didn't; they programmed their car to emit illlegal levels of pollution during normal driving, but to behave as if they were in compliance only during testing. The Clean Air Act specifics that the vehicle must comply during "normal operation" and that the EPA testing is intended to be a representative sample of real world "normal operation". VW gamed that system, and "cheating" is the most clear way of saying that. The only problem with "cheating" is that it's not boring enough; it doesn't sound pretentious, it doesn't sound stuffy. "Encyclopedic", to some, is all about avoiding plain English and finding words with a lot of syllables. If we can't say "cheat" then we have to replace "cheat" with a whole bunch of words that mean the same thing, not a different word that means something else. Cheat is not colloquial English, it isn't slang and it isn't informal. There's nothing wrong with the word. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This RfC is about the matter of illegality. My recent edit - thanks for providing the diff above - didn't affect this point. On reviewing the wording of the first sentence it struck me that VW hadn't been "caught" or "revealed" or "discovered" in September 2015, but rather to have been informed of the violation by the EPA. We can discuss the wording further in another section, as we have been doing, but we're on a different topic here - that of illegality. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've also whitewashed the fact that they spent 15 months evading justice with lies, a sham recall, and stories about "technical" reasons for the discrepancies, when they knew exactly why the cars only complied during testing but not the real world. The word "caught" encompasses all that evasion of the law. I accept using the word "alleged", but the sentence should say what they are "alleged" to have done, which is violate the Clean Air Act with a deliberate subterfuge, and then lie about it. They lied to consumers for years as well. They've admited it all and this whitewash is doing them favors they didn't ask for, to the determent of several other involved parties. It's highly partisan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss those points elsewhere, but we're wandering off topic here. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made an edit to the lede along those lines, Notecardforfree. A point: VW didn't falsify data during the testing. The emissions recorded by the EPA and others were completely accurate. For TDi engines, the firmware in the ECU turned on the emission control for NOx when it detected that a static dynamometer test was being conducted. At other times during normal driving this was inactive. So static tests confirmed that the engine was compliant at that time, but the mobile tests conducted by WVU registered the emissions at times when the system was inactive. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You made a very confused edit which mixes up the event in 2014 when VW was informed of discrepancies, and the event in September 2015 when they were served with an NOV, which is an Administrative Action by the EPA finding VW in violation of several sections of the Clean Air Act, and serving them with a legally binding order to do a recall. You should put it back and respect the RfC you started. Those of us paying attention to the sources are making progress. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications about the alleged violations. With regard to the confusion in the opening sentence, maybe it would help to say "In September 2015, German car maker Volkswagen AG was formally advised by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that after fifteen months of investigation, it had been found to be using software designed to circumvent US emissions tests." Also, maybe we should change "September 2015" to just "2015"? The CARB letter states that CARB confronted VW about potential violations on July 8, 2015. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The word "illegally" should generally not be used in this context because it is a loaded term without a clear definition. There may end up being some civil liability; there may be EPA violations when a final determination is made; ultimately someone may be found guilty of a criminal offense -- but illegal implies criminal guilt, and that is not something that has happened in this case. I urge Dennis to look more closely at the exact manner in which the reliable sources describe the events. Minor4th </b> 19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We should not use the term "illegal" applied to VAG until there has been a conviction. We can describe an illegal act, we can say VAG have been accused of such. But until a conviction, we should not (even if a case is "blindingly obvious" that it will lead to some conviction) judge them for ourselves.
 * Nor does adding the term "illegal" even improve the article. It is entirely adequate to describe the situation, as sourceable so far, and leave judgement to others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Say nothing about "guilty" or "illegal" in Wikipedia's voice but report fairly the claims made by various reliable sources in the voice of those sources. As others have said the word adds nothing and is judgemental without being informative. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I don't think we can state in Wikipedia's voice that VW committed fraud either, unless or until a legal process concludes this. Legal terms are best left to lawyers, judges and juries. An encyclopedia fairly and neutrally discusses what the best sources say about a subject. As this is still quite a fresh affair, one thing that might help is to think of what the article will look like in a year or in five years. If it won't be there long term (ie if it is speculation, even well-sourced speculation), then it shouldn't be included now. --John (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no basis in policy for writing articles based on our predictions of what sources will say in the future. Talk about WP:CRYSTAL! We work with the sources we have, not the sources we think we might someday have. You're saying ignore what our sources say, and say something completely different, based on your theory that there's going to be some kind of retraction? It's one thing to go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard and say "The New York Times" is a sensationalist tabloid; lets not cite them." Fat chance, right? If they're a reputable source, then we should follow them. Not take what the NYT says, then spin it in one particular direction, always to make Volkswagen look less bad. When you take admitted fraud, and refuse to call it fraud, or cheating, or illegal, as our best sources (not op-ed, not opinion, straight news) say, then you're causing harm to VW's consumers, stockholders, dealers, the general public, and others. That's not neutral; it's taking sides in favor of VW and against all other interests. And even VWs's own PR doesn't deny wrongdoing, they're very clear that the news reports are true. They did it. A sober tone is one thing; erasing the basic facts is POV pushing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still can't find anything in WP:NPOV that justifies anything but matching the tone, wording and emphasis we find in our sources, per WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." WP:FALSEBALANCE further emphasizes that we may not amplify obscure or nonexistent doubt about widely-accepted facts -- "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance". That's what I see in WP:NPOV. Can anyone tell me where it says you have to deviate so far from your sources this way just because the sources say things that make the subject look bad? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hedge with some further explanation. We should give in our own encyclopedic words a summary of what sources say, with proper attribution and citation.  I agree with others here that WP is not (intended to be) a tabloid newspaper or a site for atacking organisations or putting things right.  We should not put every anti-WV quote in here that we can find nor use sensationalist or emotive language but just state, in encyclopedic language, what accusations have been made.   In my opinion, statements like, ' It has been variously estimated that the practice killed between 12 and 106 persons by diseases such as asthma and heart disease in the United States' are not justified, particularly in the lead.   Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On reading through the article my opinion that it needs to be toned down considerably. It currently reads like an WP:Attack page.  There is no doubt that VW have acted very badly and may have caused great harm but it is not the job of Wikipedia to deal with this; that should be left to the proper authorities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless somebody has found reputable sources who have presented this story any other way, then toning it down would violate the the WP:NPOV policy, specifically, "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." The tone of 99.99% of our best-quality sources treats the fact of VW's willful violation of the law out of corporate self-interest as an uncontested fact. If we had any good sources which disputed that, it would be a different matter.  We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. I'm talking about straight news reporting in high-prestige magazines and newspapers, not tabloids, not opinion articles. I think what's so hard for so many editors to get through their heads here is that there is no credible doubt or disagreement over the basic facts here. A lot of editors still want to call this the "VW emissions controversy", implying that a controversy -- a disagreement or dispute -- exists. This is one of the most uncontroversial scandals in years. A couple extreme-right wing opinion pieces have appeared but they cast doubt on the science of air pollution itself, and the need for any environmental regulation at all. Even these fringe views accept the fact that VW cheated illegally, and deviously so. Wikipedia's voice should state widely-accepted facts, not create a false impression of doubt where none exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Say nothing about "guilty" or "illegal" in Wikipedia's voice - Not for us to decide what was illegal or who is guilty. NickCT (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Report the facts without emotive rhetoric. Yes, they committed a massive criminal act against the United States and against Europe and other countries, and yes the consequences contribute to deaths, but Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, so some non-heavily-weighted wording is expected. Damotclese (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are reliable sources - I was summoned by a bot. I have hesitated to get off into the weeds on this RfC, becausem frankly, I smell paid editing. I am not accusing any one editor; I have not read the history of the page closely enough to do this and I am not gonna. I have my own big messy projects underway and if I get to deep into this I will no longer be an uninvolved editor; I know how these go and I don't need it. I invite the editors who believe that the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time, Wired, and so on, are not reliable sources on a story about automotive technology to take their case to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and see how quickly they get laughed back to wherever they came from. I just googled the words volkswagen and emissions and am getting:
 * Schumer: Volkswagen Should Pay $18B In Fines For Fraud (CBS quoting a US Senator)
 * How VW's Cheat Mode Hurts Performance and Fuel Economy (Wired)
 * How much pollution did VW's emissions cheating create? (Los Angeles Times)
 * By the way, the LA Times concludes that the "cheating" likely did cause deaths and that the affected automobiles were at times emitting 10 to 40 *times* permitted levels. So Wikipedia should, yes, quote reliable sources that accurate mirror the scale of the problem. I did not see "illegal" although a) I did not look hard and b) I am pretty sure that real-world emissions 1000-4000% higher than in testing are probably illegal. But I also think that Wikipedia should not say so itself in its own voice in the lede, no, and I bow to the people coming in from the Law portal on proper wording. But to answer the RfC as asked, yes, certainly, if reliable sources say that Volkswagen did something wrong, then then should be used. Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I delete the RfC from my page I just wanted to add that as best I can tell as an intelligent news consumer who hasn't researched the matter in detail, there is zero question of what happened. VW doesn't dispute that it happened, just whether it was done as policy or at management direction. NPR is doing stories about whether the German government will need to bail them out. The CEO has resigned. Forget allegedly. If there are concerns about liability for libel put the facts in quotes, preferably from Volkswagen or that story quoting Schumer. And while I realize that reliable sources are determined on a case-by-case basis, as someone who has spent more time than I really care to think about over then I can assure you than a mainstream news source with editorial review and a policy of publishing corrections is almost always going to be RS for current news. Elinruby (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOT tests
To comply with regulations, defeat devices will have to be removed or disabled. Will the car then fail its MOT test through emitting too much NOx? Biscuittin (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Too much? Though I'm sure VW drivers are hoping for better, the simplest fix is to reprogram the ECU to stay in emissions test mode all the time, eliminating the illegal cheat mode. That will mean the NOx adsorber is not disabled, which will reduce NOx emissions -- that's the whole point of all of this. The NOx adsorber in operation will decrease fuel economy, and make the car less zippy to drive from a loss of low end torque, but emitting too much NOx? Not sure where you're getting that from. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, they would eliminate the legal, non-test, modes? The cars emit acceptable NOx levels at the "test mode," which is the "cheat mode." I don't know whether this is the ultimate solution. I had the impression that they would implement a catalyst converter, to allow for the same driving performance. --31.4.158.215 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The NOx adsorber uses fuel to burn off adsorbed NOx. The claim about loss of torque is sourced from a quote by an analyst who was speculating about why VW would do this. The EPA Notice of Violation however tells us that "during normal vehicle operation" ... "software"... "reduced the effectiveness of the emission control system (specifically the selective catalytic reduction or the lean NOx trap)." The consequences of which are lower Adblue reductor or fuel consumption respectively. This has no effect on the torque. Gerben1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe UK MOT test is so lax: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429032/mot-inspection-manual-classes-3-4-5-7-vehicles.pdf. See section 7.4 Do we need a page on "vehicle type testing" versus "routine annual testing for each individual vehicle" (or is there one already that I haven't found?). My interest in this is that I have a March 2008 VW (allegedly EU4 [BKP Engine]), which seems close to the start date. I'm just trying to establish the truth and help all other concerned parties by updating news quickly. I don't want my car to be crippled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S can I register and get all of my IP address comments converted to a username? Everything I can see with my IP back to 2008 is one of my edits.
 * You can register here but I don't think you can retroactively convert your edits from IPs, the normal way of declaring other accounts you have is to just mention them on your user page, AFAIK. Please also sign your comments by appending --~ to them. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In Ordnung ping pong
'in order' is bad english. 'rectify' is good english. In any case http://www.autonews.com/article/20151015/COPY01/310159986/vw-ordered-to-recall-2-4-million-cars-in-germany-with-cheat-software renders the entire ping pong match irrelevant, they;ve been told to do a recall. So stop being silly. Tag team may get around 3RR it certainly doesn't get around tendentious editing. Greglocock (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a wonderful thing when a bilingual editor can bring in facts from German language sources, but if they don't know the actual meaning of the German phrase enough to translate it, then your reach exceeds your grasp. I speak enough German to order drinks and get a cab ride home in Berlin, but that doesn't qualify me to bring in information form Deutsch-language news article. The sentence "In Germany, VW has proposed that car owners voluntarily return their cars for VW to bring to order, but German authorities demand that all problematic cars be recalled" is incorrect English idiom and the weird phrase "bring to order" is a huge red flag that it was written by someone who doesn't know the precise translation of "in Ordnung".<P>Wikipedia is not news: we don't have a deadline to bring in the latest facts hot from the presses. We don't have a beat to cover requiring that we get up to the minute facts from every capital of the globe. We can and should say nothing when we're not sure. Wait for an editor with better language skills, or an English language news article that summarizes this accurately. Pidgin English updates don't add value.<P>If anyone says they know the correct translation is "rectify" or "fix" or whatever, I'll accept that AGF, naturally, but not if it's obvious that editor is only guessing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that VW suggested to leave an unknown number of cars to continue to pollute is still notable, as is their attempt to conceal the deceit. That far outweighs any minor poor translation. Retain the good and fix the bad, but don't remove sourced material when you are not sure how to understand it; use or something instead. I know what the words "in Ordnung" mean (as well as many other German words and phrases), and it roughly translates to rectify. We should include original (German) sources as well as sources in non-original (English) language. TGCP (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with TGCP that it should be included, but I don't think "to rectify" should be used in the sentence, it makes it sound odd, in the same way that using archaic language makes sentences weird (verily, ye, thee, thou, etc). In this context, "to fix" will work perfectly fine, unless they aren't actually being fixed and given back, then there should be no qualifier (i.e. just say they are recalling it). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Rectify" is a perfectly cromulent English word. I think it fits the situation better than "to fix", which implies that something is broken. In this instance, it means to make correct, to bring to order, to make right.


 * DB has a point, however, and using English-language sources is certainly a better way forward than to argue over translations, unless it is clear that the source is wrong. We're in no hurry, ja? --Pete (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We're recalling the cars to fix the issue" versus "We're recalling the cars to rectify the issue" -- they mean the same thing, but the first one sits much better with me, I'm guessing I was raised with a different English language ;) --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are currently thousands of examples at Google News like "working with VW to come up with an appropriate fix", "proposals Volkswagen filed last week to fix vehicles", "Germany orders fixes to VW cars", "VW working on fix for scandal-hit British cars". It's not correct that fix implies repairing something broken, it can mean to put in order, to arrange or get ready, to make steady or stable, and to bring into compliance or regulation. The root of the word is to fasten, not repair.<P>Anyway, what matters most now is the recall itself. Later on we can add specifics as to what actions they took in the recall, and reactions as to whether the recall was sufficient. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need headline writers to fix our articles. We have enough space to find the right word. The common meaning is to repair some malfunction. At least it is here. In other places, they might fix dinner, which always struck me as a worry. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is really the same point as the one that I have made above. When WV say that they will 'fix/rectify/put in order' the problem without more details it is just a PR exercise. Just as we should not use the overblown language of tabloid newspapers to atack VW, we should not use the vague promises of the VW PR department. As others have said, we are not a news medium and there is no rush to say anything on the subject at all. In my opinion, we should wait until VW make a clear statement of exactly what they intend to do before adding anything here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a straight line from inventing the Defeat Device, through to concealing and denying deceit, on to leaving cars unfixed: allowing pollution for financial gain. The attempted third step is still not covered here. That intention was the cause of all this, and remains as notable as the mere results. So no, the recall itself is not the only thing that matters. As for languages, the English sources are sometimes thin, pale and inaccurate reflections of the original German sources - after all, the main VW decisions and actions occur in Germany, as do investigative journalism. We should have both languages to provide accuracy and ease of understanding. Btw, glad to see wordings like "put in order" which translates closely to "in Ordnung". The reason for discussing the precise words (although premature) is that the many solutions are likely to leave customers dissatisfied with performance (not rectified) in order (there it is again) to satify pollution targets (rectified). TGCP (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "in order to" (um [...] zu) means something different than "put in order" (no defs found) or even bring to order which is only relevant in the context of meetings. You are talking a very specific English not common on Wikipedia. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, BB, I think you missed TGCP's little joke. You got the order wrong, by the look of it. --Pete (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, looks like I need to bring my sense of humour to order. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TGCP, what would you regard as "fixed" or "rectified" for these cars? I don't think it's possible for VW to fix the emissions issue while also fixing the performance. I think I heard the US VW executive say something like that in his meeting with Congress - that it isn't possible because otherwise the engineers wouldn't have cheated in the first place. Would you say that this fact isn't covered in the article yet? Or are you concerned about something else? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, what is a voluntary recall? Is this where customers can, if they want, give their vehicles back to VW (and so those customers that don't care about emissions don't bother), or is it where VW decides on its own (voluntarily) that it will do a recall of all cars? A Google search tells me that it's the latter, but I want to be clear everyone is on the same page (including the sources). Is the act of voluntary recall (the latter meaning) a veiled attempt at not bothering to recall all the cars (by conveniently missing out 500 000)? Is there a source suggesting this (in German or English)? Possibly a politician, because then the article can probably say "VW was accused of this and that by these people". But we can't draw our own conclusions. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fix": As stated above, we can only cover the "fix" itself in more detail when details arrive, which they have not yet. But we can cover the intention. The ½m cars on register had been scrapped or exported.
 * Voluntary recall: This source says it used to be an owner decision, but not anymore, as KBA views the software to be illegal. (Archive because Ze Germans haf a nasti habit of updating newspages without providing edit history. A page with a Google-result date of 8oct may turn out to be 16oct.) It's the intention of financial gain by polluting more than allowed that is currently not sufficiently covered: VW wanted (wants?) some polluting cars to remain on the road, rather than "fixing" them. Btw, it is surprisingly difficult to find a full transcript of Horn's hearing in a simple layout - anyone with better luck than me? TGCP (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do need to stick to facts and I have still seen no facts about what fix/rectify/put in order actually means, just some guesses by editors here. I do not think a PR release by VW is suitable material for an encycopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * What's the legal situation, does anybody know? VW can't actually force owners to bring their cars in to have the engine management firmware changed. I suppose the government could find some method of compulsion, but then they might be liable for any costs incurred, and realistically it's a pretty minor thing. If I were an owner of one of the affected vehicles I'd be unkeen to get the thing updated for compliance; it would reduce my fuel efficiency, decrease my (car's) performance, and increase carbon emissions. I wouldn't see this as a fix so much as an embuggerance. --Pete (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "cheater" was intended to provide both good fuel economy and low emissions in a test bed situation (it did this by detecting no input from the steering wheel... even on a straight road you are always making minor corrections so this was a good test), and so it seems obvious that it's performance that will suffer if the engine is reprogrammed to always run in this mode.
 * I own an affected vehicle, and there is nothing at all wrong with it. It meets the Australian emissions standard even without the " cheater". It has good fuel economy and sparkling performance. I don't want it changed. No other manufacturer is obliged to meet the European standards in Australia. Why should VW be? But when I take it in for service, they plug it into a diagnostic computer and I can't see how I can prevent them from updating the firmware if they so desire. I wish I could. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is interesting - what are the Australian emission standards? Source? TGCP (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent question that I should have anticipated... the relevant standards for my car are those of 2008 when its compliance plate was issued. The above is I'm afraid based on discussions with other owners and VW employees none of whom want to be quoted, and who would not be reliable secondary sources in any case. I'll see what I can dig up (for my own benefit as well). But my Internet access is patchy at present (possibly owing to Telstra turning off both my local 3G towers just three weeks after selling me an antenna which is useless without them... still investigating that too). Stay tuned but don't hold breath (or if anyone else cares to research it for me I'd be grateful). Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Well-sourced clear info replaced with incomplete, inaccurate, and unclear stub.
This following reasonably clear and well-sourced section identifies what was spewed: nitrogen oxides or NOx. It was replaced with a stub lacking this clarity.

The removed section, reproduced immediately below, set out the ill-health effects of nitrogen oxides or NOx itself, directly before proceeding to their health impacts because of the ozone precursor effect. The stub with which it was replaced confounds the two.

Here's what was removed.

Non-fatal health impacts

 * "The chemicals that spewed illegally from the Volkswagen diesel cars are known as nitrogen oxides or NOx." Nitrogen oxides "can be harmful to humans" and "have been linked to a host of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, as well as premature deaths."   is a precursor to ground-level ozone which causes additional respiratory problems "including asthma, bronchitis and emphysema".   Nitrogen oxides also amplify the effect of fine particulate soot that causes heart problems, a form of air pollution estimated to kill 50,000 in the United States annually.

The truncated and unclear wording it was replace with identifies only NO2, confounds the ozone and direct NOx effects, and soft pedals the health effects, which are what this section is about, to the point of obscuring them.

Here's the wording it was replaced with. Note the references in German which may not be so helpful in this, the English Wikipedia:


 * ==== Non-fatal health impacts ====
 * is a precursor to ground-level ozone and may cause respiratory problems "including asthma, bronchitis and emphysema".  Nitrogen oxides also amplify the effect of fine particulate soot that causes heart problems, a form of air pollution estimated to kill 50,000 in the United States annually.

The problem was the language and excesive detail
WP is meant to be an encylopedia not a tabloid newspaper or an attack page against VW. NOx is harmful but the mechanism of harm and details of the specific harm caused is not particularly relevant to this article. By all means clarify any ambiguityies in the original text but please do so in an encyclopedic manner. If you are in any doubt as to what 'encyclopedic' means, have a read of a quality written encyclopedia like Britannica or Chambers and see if you can find language like 'chemicals that spewed illegally' or irrelevant and emotive detail in the text. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Article is missing the why of all this
The article fails to explain the why---why Volkswagen was forced into a choice between either burning diesel fuel like crazy or adding a urea tank and couldn't just use a traditional catalytic converter to begin with. Keep in mind that millions of consumers have been accustomed to having catalytic converters on their vehicles for many years, which has been very effective in reducing nitrogen oxides. It makes zero sense to them why that technology just doesn't work in this context. To them, all this hand-waving about having to inject fuel directly into exhaust or add a urea tank sounds like flimsy excuses for automotive engineers' incompetence (because computer science and electrical engineering have attracted the most brilliant students for the last fifty years, which means the auto industry gets stuck with the leftovers). As a historian of science and technology, I am well aware it's really not a fair comparison, but from the consumer point of view, they are accustomed to computer technology that just works (thanks to Apple Inc.) and it's frustrating when other technologies don't.

My vague understanding is that there was news coverage explaining that traditional catalytic converters require a well-balanced air-to-fuel ratio in the exhaust and diesel engines run too lean, but I don't understand the chemistry well enough to describe that accurately and I don't have the time to refresh my memory on it right now. If anyone does understand it, they should add an explanation to the start of the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a separate Wikipedia article diesel emissions that addresses this in depth, but we should explain more here too. Also that BMW and Mercedes were better able to add costly urea systems and whatnot because it was a proportionally smaller part of a more expensive car. Adding $2,000 to the price of an already uncompetitively priced VW diesel wasn't going to work. Dysfunctional VW management culture was also a major factor. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Cribbed version
I sometimes crib Wikipedia leads into my own notes. In this case, I had to do a bit of rewrite to frame the issue appropriately:

The Volkswagen emissions scandal was the public aftermath of a criminal conspiracy within the Volkswagon company to cheat on emissions testing and to deceive the buying public about the environmental footprint of turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines.

The programming caused the vehicles' nitrogen oxide (NOx) output to meet US standards during regulatory testing, but emit up to 40 times more NOx in real-world driving. Volkswagen put this programming in about eleven million cars worldwide, and in 500,000 in the United States, during model years 2009 through 2015.

On 18 September 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act to German automaker Volkswagen Group, after it was found that the car maker had intentionally programmed TDI engines to activate certain emissions controls only during laboratory emissions testing.

Five whole minutes invested, 40× less pathetic. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been trying since this was created to write it in plain English, matching the tone and wording of our best sources. Numerous editors insisted we must couch it in vague, passive-voice academic tones for fear of saying what every prestigious source clearly says Volkswagen did. I think they're acting as if "corporations are people" and applying the WP:BLP policy to something that is not a living person. So there it is. I think your wording is a big improvement. But I don't know any way of getting the article changed without pearl-clutching instant reverts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Belgium dieselgate committee
For the Belgium Chamber of Representatives committee, does anybody have an proof that the committee has 'Dieselgate' in its title? I suspect that in the given reference http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20151014_01918764 this title was added by the news reporter and is not actually an official title.  Stepho  talk 00:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't see the big deal about this and I didn't see this talk page section until now. I worded it "a special committee to follow up Dieselgate" which is more of a descriptor than a name. Nevertheless, it is very easy to find the name "Dieselgate" on the Chamber's website. The report is more difficult to find, it is available via http://www.dekamer.be/FLWB/PDF/54/1720/54K1720001.pdf - as mentioned, the special committee is tasked with following up the "Dieselgate" dossier. Also, the name Dieselgate is used throughout Belgian media and it is in fact my job to follow this matter. SPQRobin (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding that reference. I have filled in a few more fields for it - e.g. authors, dates, language. Much appreciated.  Stepho  talk 10:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Industry-wide issues (Nissan, Mitsubishi, GM, Daimler) (reverted edit: please discuss)
I have recently come across this article, which puts forth a compiled list of facts related to industry-wide problems that I find relevant enough to incorporate here: i.e., the recent Nissan admission of emission data manipulation, the Mitsubishi fuel consumption scandal, GM's admission that it overstated the fuel consumption for some of its crossovers, and a Spiegel-reported class action suit brought against Daimler, who apparently deceived consumers when it claimed that its “BlueTec cars are the world’s cleanest diesel.”

The user who reverted my edit claims that 'Forbes contributors' are not considered reliable sources. While I can understand why this might apply in certain situations, I want to draw attention here to the fact that the article in question is not an editorial or an opinion piece, but rather a compilation of factual data (themselves referenced throughout the article in question). I would therefore appreciate it if fellow editors could review this matter and incorporate the points above in our article. Sb2s3 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have already noted that gaming emission testing schemes is not new, though many experts think this VW case is unique due to its scale, the sophistication of the deception, and the coordination of intentional deception involving many people at the company. There are some who defend VW as "not that bad" or "not that much worse" than the rest, but that is a minority view, bordering on WP:FRINGE.<P>The particular examples at Forbes, whether they pass WP:RS or not, belong on some other article. Three of the examples are about cheating on national fuel economy standards, not emissions testing. The fourth one is not so much cheating on emissions testing, but rather deceptive advertising claims to consumers, not government regulators, as to how much pollution Daimler engines emit. That stuff probably belongs on articles related to automotive fuel economy, or advertising/public relations, not defeat devices and emissions testing cheating. The Forbes blogger seems to be arguing that in general the car industry is more corrupt and dishonest is widely perceived by somebody else. That kind of depends on how honest "somebody else" actually perceives this industry to be, and how honest people think the car industry is in relation to other industries. It all edges into a philosophical area and nebulous notions of whether the world is such a good place as "some people" think it is, and whether or not things are going to hell in a handbasket. My observation, based almost entirely on facts I gleaned watching the TV show Mad Men, is that the general public's assessment is that the auto industry is that they're pretty darn corrupt, among the most dishonest of all industries. But who can say? Perhaps we could quote a Gallup poll on the question.<P>I think it's OK to have some opinion and analysis of what this scandal says about the car industry as a whole, but we should look for pundits who are more focused on specific issues and grounded in objective facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Lack of explanation
What do terms and abbreviations such as Dyno and WVU in the table in section 1.5 mean? While this may be obvious to American readers, international readers may find it hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.13.115 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I added links to Dynometer and West Virginia University. The dyno measurement is the amount of commissions measured when the vehicle is strapped to a dynometer test equipment. The car can see that the engine is in gear and running but the wheels are not moving - thus it assumes it is on a dyno (typically done when testing emmissions) and thus runs in a mode that has worse power/economy but better emissions. On the street it assumes nobody is measuring emissions, so it runs in a mode that has better power/economy but worse emissions. WVU tested vehicles in real life situations where the vehicle did not realise it was being tested.  Stepho  talk 09:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Economic warfare / corporate warfare?
Is there any information out there yet that calls it a possible incident of economic warfare or corporate warfare?

As a sidenote: I don't think it's bad that they disclosed this, quite the opposite actually, but if this was done with the help of intelligence agencies and potentially with the intend of harming an economic competitor it certainly needs to be in the article.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I've seen. Silly conspiracy theory seems like a better link Greglocock (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Other vehicle manufacturers
The scandal appears to be spreading to other manufacturers. I do not think it is appropriate to bring these new revelations into the VW article so propose creating a new page being a general "Diesel emissions scandal" page which will utilise certain paragraphs and citations already on the VW page and add a number of new sections and citations. The existing VW page can then be trimmed to remove the items relating to other manufacturers. Any comments or thoughts on this proposal ? Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Diesel emissions scandal page has been created. Paragraphs utilised from this article have been blanked from view. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dating
I don't know which problem Wikipedia editors have with dating news... There are many happenings listed on the article, but without date, they become confusing. This scandal is ongoing for many years already. Dates are needed!--200.223.199.146 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you give some examples? Also note that major events are listed on the timeline near the top right of the article.  Stepho  talk 20:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I tagged most of the places where dating is needed.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Volkswagen emissions scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030021054/http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/docs/2011_pems_jrc_62639_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/docs/2011_pems_jrc_62639_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919011334/http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b!OpenDocument to http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b!opendocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928143353/http://nysepost.com/volkswagen-scandal-govt-asks-arai-to-inspect-india-spec-5189 to http://nysepost.com/volkswagen-scandal-govt-asks-arai-to-inspect-india-spec-5189

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Volkswagen emissions scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170302172909/https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b to https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/a883dc3da7094f97852572a00065d7d8/dfc8e33b5ab162b985257ec40057813b
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925043812/http://wot.motortrend.com/taxpayers_paid_51m_in_green_car_subsidies_linked_to_vw_diesels.html to http://wot.motortrend.com/taxpayers_paid_51m_in_green_car_subsidies_linked_to_vw_diesels.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925115541/http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2015/09/Statement.html to http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/news/2015/09/Statement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303041413/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/08c%20-%20Letter%20from%20Paul%20Willis%20to%20Louise%20Ellman%20dated%2021%20December%202015%20-%20Volkswagen%20emissions.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/transport/08c%20-%20Letter%20from%20Paul%20Willis%20to%20Louise%20Ellman%20dated%2021%20December%202015%20-%20Volkswagen%20emissions.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810075202/http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Commission_independante.pdf to http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Commission_independante.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803170619/http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_Resultats_Commission_UTAC_le_27-04-2016.pdf to http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DP_Resultats_Commission_UTAC_le_27-04-2016.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160711001851/http://wvumag.wvu.edu/features/double-exposure to http://wvumag.wvu.edu/features/double-exposure

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Volkswagen emissions scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119191859/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-diesel-owners-1-000-205314161.html to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-diesel-owners-1-000-205314161.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160428145016/http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&language=nl&cfm=%2Fsite%2Fwwwcfm%2Fflwb%2Fflwbn.cfm%3FdossierID%3D1720&legislat=54&inst=K to http://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&language=nl&cfm=%2Fsite%2Fwwwcfm%2Fflwb%2Fflwbn.cfm%3FdossierID%3D1720&legislat=54&inst=K
 * Added tag to https://www.vwcanadasettlement.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Exhibit-5-Estimated-Settlement-Payments.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170113132615/http://thezimbabwemail.com/business-12118-sa-regulators-to-probe-local-vw-unit-after-emissions-scandal.html to http://thezimbabwemail.com/business-12118-sa-regulators-to-probe-local-vw-unit-after-emissions-scandal.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922183536/http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NUXWZM6JTSE901-44SIDIDMH3F3206LJABAVM0V73 to http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NUXWZM6JTSE901-44SIDIDMH3F3206LJABAVM0V73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170411141323/http://www.techtimes.com/articles/191861/20170110/volkswagen-executive-arrested-over-diselgate-scandal.htm to http://www.techtimes.com/articles/191861/20170110/volkswagen-executive-arrested-over-diselgate-scandal.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923085635/http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NUXWZM6JTSE901-44SIDIDMH3F3206LJABAVM0V73 to http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-NUXWZM6JTSE901-44SIDIDMH3F3206LJABAVM0V73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930180432/http://vwdieselinfo.com/faqs/ to http://www.vwdieselinfo.com/faqs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential malicious edit
See Section "United States" for word "It" replaced with word "TIt". SquashEngineer (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * by .  Stepho  talk 09:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline + lead
1. Re:

... called "emissionsgate"[18] or "dieselgate"[19]) began in September 2015...

I would put in the earlier start date as from the Timeline.

2. FYI ArsTechnica has it thus: It all started with conflicting constraints on the design of a 3.0L Audi vehicle. Design began in 2006. Reportedly, Audi engineers were struggling to make a car that could meet the US' diesel emissions standards... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/need-for-a-large-trunk-and-a-high-end-sound-system-pushed-audi-to-cheat/

with more moral & business & technical details. Zezen (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The Sept 2015 date is when the US government took action. The date could be rolled back to May 2014 when the report on discrepancies between certified and real-world emissions was published but no further. Before that there we events leading up to a scandal (eg engine code design in 2006) but the scandal itself had not blown up yet. A scandal is only a scandal when it is made public.  Stepho  talk 09:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

[sic] references
The reference with the text "EPA: Volkswagon Thwarted Pollution Regulations For 7 Years" was recently changed to "EPA: Volkswagon [sic] Thwarted Pollution Regulations For 7 Years". I understand that "[sic]" was added so that people don't change it to "Volkswagen". My problem is that if we git bit rot at the reference site (which is all too common) then people will naively try to fix the dead link by searching for a title that contains "[sic]". Better to put the spelling difference as a comment after the title.  Stepho  talk 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)