User:RicoCorinth/ThirdOpinions

== Corporate Average Fuel Economy: New Loophole Created by 110th Congress ==

EnCM wrote, "Your rationale for deleting the section is merely your POV that the numbers are laughingly high."

Calculations
Per Verifiability policy, "Material challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

Kailer2 refers to "Assertions and statistics not cited" and writes, "it is not enough to do the calculations yourself, you must cite a published source where these numbers come from," and "that since these statistics are not from a published source they are inadmissible." EnCM, do you have a reliable source to cite?

EnCM wrote, "[Kailer2] may not like the calculations or understand how to duplicate them but that does not change the fact that the calculations are accurate."

However, Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source [...] for any material that is challenged [...] or the material may be removed."

EnCM wrote, "I have added the citations to the NHTSA data used to perform the calculations [...] Estimates of CAFE performance for future model years was taken from NHTSA assumptions..." and "the calculations using officially supplied numbers are what you do not understand." However, wp:SYNTH states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

That means that even if the "officially supplied numbers" can be attributed to a reliable, published source -- and even if there is methodology you cite -- you may not combine the numbers and "the methodology cited," and "follow the methodology to its logical conclusion," "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

It may be true that "the calculations are accurate." However, per WP:OR, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."

EnCM, have the calculations themselves been published by a reliable source? EnCM wrote, "I was there and I know this is accurate. If you doubt this call Alan Reuter at the UAW."

EnCM, you may have been there, and "know this is accurate" -- and Alan Reuter may too -- but neither one of you is a reliable (as defined by Wikipedia), published source.

EnCM wrote, "there are numerous citiations including graphs tables and calculations that come from contributors within the WIKI community."

The graphs, tables and calculations would have to be attributed to a reliable, published source. -- Rico  19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

UAW involvement in the domestic/import fleet debate
"Under the original CAFE statute enacted in the 1970s, the UAW was concerned that manufacturers would move small car production overseas to take advantage of the lower labor costs. The union fought for and won a provision that required separate calculations for domestically produced and imported passenger cars. Section 104 undoes this provision contained in the original statute."

The Thomas link is dead.

Alternatives to simply deleting content

 * Tagging the section.


 * Moving the section to the talk page.

Possibilities for citing sources
EnCM wrote, "There were numberous articles written during the period leading up to passage that confirmed that foreign companies supported the legislation and worked with the key legislators to achieve its passage."

EnCM, if these sources are reliable, why not cite them?

Tentative conclusion based on what's been written so far
EnCM, while we really appreciate having people like you contributing to Wikipedia, that have spent over 30 years the studying CAFE and its impact on automotive companies, that try to explain in plain English what legislation did -- the consensus among Wikipedians is that its policies and guidelines must be followed.

One of those policies states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" -- but I would think you would have to justify how your edits improve the encyclopedia, since they've been challenged. -- Rico  20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)