Talk:Alliance for Automotive Innovation

About this article

As the creator of this article, I should mention here that I have a potential conflict of interest with its subject matter, in that I have undertaken the research and writing of it on behalf of this organization. In the interests of following the relevant guideline, I created it only following a discussion at WikiProject Automobiles, seeking feedback on the draft and making some requested changes. I recognize that future editors will make changes to this article; I have no problem with that, and in fact I encourage it. If you've come across this note and have any questions about this article, please try me on my user Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bias tags

I added a few bias tags so that this article will get some independent criticism from others and move forward without being left as a biased article. A few issues stand out but obviously with Xmas round the corner i have a limited free time to take on an article rewrite so i'll just leave this note. Congratulations on creating your article WWB Jenova20 12:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Truth be told, I am concerned that the article has been so flagged, following a month-long effort on my part to seek feedback before taking this article live, and especially considering no addressable issues have been mentioned. For anyone else who may find this note, I have posted a more detailed response on Jenova's discussion page. I welcome any constructive discussion and hope that the matter can be resolved soon. WWB Too (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to start off let's keep the discussion here as it's more likely to be contributed to.

I did tag it for bias because you state yourself you have a Conflict of interest and did only spot this article because it was on the Auto project page.

It was difficult not to tag it for bias for me after reading through the article and seeing the criticism from Mr Choppers. What stands out is how well written the article is but also how devoid of criticism it is.

For an (lobbying?) organisation representing such controvertial things like emissions limits (especially in America) there should be a lot attributed to such an organisation in the way of criticism.

So i'm afraid i can't remove the tags without someone i know with a better knowledge of these things saying that it's ok to (like for example Stepho or Mr Choppers).

Just because it's tagged, it doesn't stop people learning about the subject or enjoying the article, it just means that it needs a few more opinions than the company's, and a few more references that aren't directly from the company.

Thanks WWB and have a good Christmas Jenova20 12:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I appreciate you discussing it with me, and I am pleased that you find the article well-written. However, I believe your (apparently prophylactic) templates remain unwarranted. A few points in reply:

• Respectfully, I think you may be over-interpreting COI guideline somewhat; as I understand it, the content matters more than the contributor. As the guideline states, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. In writing carefully from reliable sources, following NPOV and seeking consensus, it has been my goal to comply with the guideline. And if I have run afoul of it, it is still not clear to me how.

• Likewise, I don't follow your point that, given Global Automakers' engagement of public issues, "there should be a lot attributed ... in the way of criticism". I would not seek to exclude criticism of the organization from the article, but nor do I believe there is anything significant which has not been covered. I invited Mr. Choppers (and I invite you) to contribute anything which is relevant and properly cited. I did update the article with more information at his request, yet if anything specific should be changed now, he has not said so, despite ample opportunity. That this hasn't happened surely cannot be the basis for a warning tag questioning the article's neutrality.

• And I hope you would reconsider your statement that the article "needs a few more opinions than the company's, and a few more references that aren't directly from the company". As to the first point, I have endeavored to keep the article opinion-free, and to describe the events of its history in simple, declarative sentences. If there is room for improvement, please share. As to the second point, just 4 of the 17 sources are company press releases, and they are used only to verify simple information about Global Automakers. The rest are industry publications (Automotive News) or mainstream newspapers (i.e. Chicago Tribune, New York Times).

As I stated on your Talk page yesterday, I too want this article to be a fair, accurate and representative picture of Global Automakers and its role in the industry. If there are resolvable issues, I'd like to help do so. But if there are not, I ask that you reconsider the tags until such time as specific problems are raised. WWB Too (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yumpin' yiminy. This doesn't look like an encyclopædia article. From the section headers to the content and tone, it's a press release or perhaps the text for an "About Us" page on the association's own website. The subject might pass NOTE, but I have a hard time reconciling this article in its present form with SOAP. By all means let's go ahead and document the existence, activities, and history of AIA/AIAM/AGAM…but we'll need to include not just the gold stars and sunshine, but also the warts and brickbats. We are here to write an encyclopædia, not to promulgate an industry association's selfgratulatory puffery and golden-rosy selective perception of their own history. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have toned it down a bit with some copyediting, updating of figures, removal of superfluous information, and link changes (e.g. from "trade association" to "lobby group"), but it still needs more work. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker, I appreciate your proactive work on this article, though I do have two questions / suggestions:

• First, more than one heading in the article would help to break up the gray wall of text. My suggestion would be to keep History as a top-level heading, and perhaps return Current era to where it was, and add Early years where Challenging trade restrictions previously existed?

• Second, I'm not clear on why [[Trade association]] was an inappropriate description for the infobox, specifically your change from that to [[Advocacy group|Lobbying group]]; lobbying is indeed one of their activities, as noted in my original draft, but I think it's not the most accurate overall description; I do believe "Trade association" is.

Meanwhile, I'd like to ask you, as I've been asking other uninvolved editors, to suggest additional important topics for inclusion. I've mentioned before (as I just have in more detail over at WikiProject Automobiles) that I have not been able to locate reliable, third-party sources about issues raised by Mr.choppers (also in the afore-linked thread) so I find myself in the strange position of, in effect, seeking to prove a negative. If there are any major unaddressed topics, I am interested in specific suggestions.

And, Scheinwerfermann, since Biker Biker's edits, have you changed your views about this article? Specific feedback from you would also be welcome. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker Biker's edits have begun to steer this article in a productive direction. We are at the start of that process, nowhere near its fruition, and I would not be comfortable with removing any of the four templates from the article in its present state of development. Far from being "prophylactic" as you surmise, to me they appear to be soundly based in the present content and tone of the article. Once—and only once—the article is improved and expanded in ways that address the issues pointed out by the templates, the templates can be removed. They can, should, and probably shall stay as long as the article warrants their presence; there's no deadline or hurry-up rush on their removal (at least not one based in Wikipedia policy, protocol, or practice; the Association folks who hired you to write the article, on the other hand, might want the templates gone sooner than later).

As to your query of why "Lobby group" is a more appropriate description than "Trade association": The answer is found right in the article itself, which states (inter alia, emphasis added): "AIA evolved into the primary advocacy resource for many major vehicle importers in the 1970s, opposing (…) laws and regulations that adversely impacted its members." That assertion is robustly supported by a highly reliable source, so it's difficult to imagine how it might be in error. Moreover, there is this additional sturdy source, present as a ref in the article, which refers to the Association as The Washington lobby for foreign-brand automakers (emphasis added). Per SPADE, it is incumbent upon us to nomenclate the subject of an article accurately by reference to their actual activities, and not by whatever which palatably euphemistic word or phrase the subject entity themselves would prefer. Consider, for analogous example, groups whose activities run heavily towards combatting legal equality for homosexuals. Very few such groups call themselves anti-gay; most of them prefer a more palatably euphemistic phrase such as "promoting traditional family values" or somesuch. That kind of preference carries no weight here; this is an encyclopædia wherein our duty is to describe the world as it is, not as we (or the subject of an article) might prefer it to be (one imagines "who…us? Oh, heavens no, we're not a lobbying organisation! Nothing like that, we're just a harmless, lovable bunch of trade-association fuzzballs over here!"). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A principle of WIkipedia is that one should assume good faith (WP:AGF) in other editors. However, in the case of paid-for editors that is very hard to do. Your haste to have the maintenance tags removed leads me to infer that perhaps you won't get paid by your employers until they are gone. If that is the case then you may be in for a long wait. Schweinwerfermann is quite correct in stating that we have only just begun, but how long that process will take is anybody's guess because Wikipedia is not a commercially run organisation with a define project plan with milestones, deadlines, regular reviews etc. It may take months for this article to reach a state where those templates can be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker, I understand your point about paid editors, although it is my goal to comport myself in a manner such that your willingness to assume good faith is not misplaced. Don't worry about my being paid—and I'm sure you're not!—my concern is that I worked hard to develop good content on a notable topic, followed the rules in disclosing my COI, sought unhurried feedback in a relevant forum, only to have the article tagged for unspecified problems once I took the article live, and now I'm having the darndest time getting a precise answer about what needs to be fixed.

Whatever "warts and brickbats" Scheinwerfermann may believe this article currently lacks, I do not think it can be fairly called "selfgratulatory puffery". I think it's a pretty straightforward summary of verified facts, and I'm concerned that the absence of criticism is being mistaken for advocacy. Meanwhile I am perfectly well aware that Wikipedia has no deadline, and all I am asking for is actionable feedback. If you can help, please do. If you are too busy, I'll understand, and I can ask for input elsewhere. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Don't worry about my being paid" (i.e., "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain") is not a reasonable or realistic directive for you to issue. Naturally the Association hired you with the express or implicit understanding that the article you'd write for them will omit or gloss over whatever which of their machinations, activities, and involvements might tend to cast unfavourable light, but that desire on their part is of less than zero consequence here; this is an encyclopædia, not a mouthpiece for the Association's (understandably) rosy, golden, selectively favourable perception and promotion of their own history. Your position is that you were not hired with an express or implicit understanding that the article you're being paid to write will cast the Association in the most favourable light possible. Okeh, that's challenging for me to imagine, but either way, your conflict of interest is not "potential", as you carry on phrasing it. It is actual and real and not only will it receive a great deal of scrutiny in its own right (as you have indubitably noticed by now), but it is also a lens through which your contributions will be scrutinised—no matter how often you request it not be. That just goes with the territory of making paid contributions to Wikipedia, no matter how scrupulously you strive to balance your two conflicting interests and write an article highly compliant with Wikipedia policy. Speaking of which, please refute (and link) me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to me that you reported your conflict of interest at WP:COIN in accord with the guidelines described here. Why is that? And are you aware of Jimbo Wales' statement on the matter of paid editing? Fact is, you will need to be prepared for your bought-and-paid contributions to be viewed with particular skepticism at least, and you will probably want to be careful about how and how often you attempt to seek shelter from it by naming bits and parts of Wikipedia policy; it is almost easier to make things worse (or at least make them look worse, which is functionally equivalent) than to make them better this way.

As to your desire to see some section headings to "break up the grey wall of text": I object to your proposal for headings like "current era", because they're arbitrary and meaningless, but it's probably best for us to focus on finishing the foundation and building a sturdy house that keeps out the rain and marauding wombats before we start kibitzing about whether to paint the walls Sahara Sand or Tawny Ecru. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am no stranger to WP:COI/N, and I would have no problem bringing this issue there. Oftentimes I've raised questions there and received no response at all, so this time I figured I wouldn't bother them and would bring it directly to WikiProject Automobiles (and for what it's worth, WP:PEW is just an essay, albeit one I take seriously). As for Jimbo's comments from 2009, I certainly am familiar and I believe his fourth paragraph describes my activity quite well. Anyway, I'd rather talk about the content of the article and figure out how to make some progress. Perhaps it's time to expand the discussion. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Hi - I have worked with the creator of this article previously and found him to be a good writer that operates within policy. He has asked me to try to mediate and assist in resolving your issues. Could we get specific content issues that relate to templates so that I can edit to address your concerns. It's not a very big article so we should be able to remove and resolve these worries quite easily. Thanks Youreallycan (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to join in with this but due to the limitations of Wikipedia editing with the Android OS i can't edit articles when a section becomes too big.

An example being my talk page at the moment, and i won't have access to a computer for another few days.

I am still watching this though and am glad placing the tags has had such a fab response and the beginnings of a discussion.

Thanks Jenova20 20:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Youreallycan, it is not appropriate for you to unilaterally remove templates considered apposite by more than one editor until the issues they point to have been discussed and at least a working consensus has been attained. You only just posted your attempt at getting template-specific discussion started today. It's holiday time. There's no deadline. You need to give the templates time to generate the necessary discussion and work. I've already added content and refs that will help move the article towards shedding those templates, but the disputes have not yet been resolved, so the templates need to stay for now. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You have added them , so state your problems below or stop adding them. Youreallycan (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nosir, I haven't added them. I've restored them following your premature removal. Take a look at the revision history of the article to see for yourself who added them. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates were not there - you added them - either explain your reasons for adding the individual templates below or stop adding them - they were there before is no excuse to add them again. Youreallycan (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to butt in but i added all four of these tags, i got an explanation of their meanings from User:Worm That Turned, looked through the description of all of them, then added all of them as i can see clear issues with the article in question.

So drop the arguing over it and can we get down to improving or deleting the article.

Thanks Jenova20 12:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting a discussion, but please leave the templates in place until that full and proper discussion can take place. That might not be in the next few hours but it can and should take place. Wikipedia doesn't run to your timetable and right now your actions in repeatedly removing the templates are are not helpful. Commercial interests, such as paid editors, cannot and should not dictate how Wikipedia is run. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Below are the reasons for your adding any templates - either comment there or don't add templates Youreallycan (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the templates, which were added before you came along to the article, until a proper discussion has taken place. You are now past 3RR on this. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a single user has responded to my request to explain the reason for the templates here. Youreallycan (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Give us time. Again, wikipedians do not respond to commercial pressures. The tags were added to the article by Jenova20 (talk · contribs) who responded to your request asking for time to reply. You didn't wait and deleted the tags. So Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs) reinstated the tags. And you deleted the tags again without waiting for replies. etc. etc. You have asked for people to engage and they will - just give them time. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates were added by you. Biker biker - the templates were not in the article and you added them - please just add beneficial explanations to the sections I have created below - no one has added anything, please address this issue. You are only edit warring and not looking to resolve the template issues. Youreallycan (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The templates were added by Jenova20 (diff) on 22 December, not by me. Earlier today Jenova20 acknowledged your request for discussion on this talk page and asked for time to respond (diff). Yet despite this you have repeatedly deleted the templates that were reinstated (correctly IMO) by Scheinwerfermann and subsequently by me. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You added the templates - they were not there and you added them - the fact that they were there before is not an excuse to replace them - you have time to revert war and time to make your reports to noticeboards so - take your time to make your detailed explanation for your insistence of the individual templates as laid out clearly below. - Youreallycan (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an important difference between replacing templates that were removed against editor consensus, which is what Scheinwerfermann and Bike did, and adding templates. Please stop playing semantic games. Editor consensus says these templates should stay. Your repeated removal of them constitutes edit warring. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Youreallycan, you have now belligerently and incorrectly accused two editors of adding templates who didn't do so. You've been pointed at the diff showing the origin of the templates—twice. You are apparently bound and determined not to see the evidence you're being shown. This what you're doing is unhelpful, without merit, and gives the appearance of being disingenuous when you prematurely remove templates and then attack editors who reinstate them. Reverting a removal of material is not the same as adding material, no matter whether that material is a template, a tag, content, a reference, or whatever which other type of material it might be. You have charged onto the scene here, at the request of a paid editor, with guns a-blazin'. You have repeatedly harassed me on my talk page[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]—with strange demands that I cease removing "good faith discussions" from my own talk page. You also appear to be badgering Biker Biker on his talk page in similar fashion [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Please remember user talk pages are not like article talk pages; the user whose page it is has sole and final authority over the content of the page.

You have belligerently disregarded BRDC and rushed ahead, despite the absence of any real deadline, to prematurely remove templates considered by several editors to be warranted. You appear to hold the opinion that "templates are of little value to the project". That's not correct. In fact, they're quite vital to the process. They're a tool to accelerate the improvement of the article. They call attention to the parts of an article most in need of development and improvement, so it's likely to happen sooner. The templates aren't to be removed until the problems they point to are resolved. That will happen as and when it happens. Nobody is entitled to skip consensus, holler "Time's up!", and summarily remove the templates as you have done, especially not mere hours after you've come here onto the talk page demanding that contributors explain themselves to your satisfaction, and particularly not when you've had one of the ongoing participants in the discussion say he'll get back to it as soon as he's able. This, like your bizarre and fatuous threat to disregard my contributions to the discussion (as though you are some kind of arbiter or judge, which you are not) cannot move us anywhere productive. All this kind of an apparent attempt to shout everyone else down and bully your way to victory can do is inflame tensions and make things worse. Stop it now, please and thank you.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Still nothing to help users address the issues has been added to the explanatory sections below, please point to the content you feel is violating policy. Also please state what significant viewpoint you feel needs adding. Youreallycan (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Promo template

• - This article may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization.

• Which content is this referring to ? Youreallycan (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Significant viewpoints template

• - The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue

• Which significant viewpoints are missing? Youreallycan (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV template

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• This seems redundant if we resolve the previous two issues. If not, then please specify what content this is referring to. Youreallycan (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Your point is moot unless the previous two issues are resolved. Clearly, they are not. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

COI template

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

• This is usually a temporary template in the initial stages of editors concerns about an article - again, when we address the content issues in the first two templates there is no benefit to this template as if the content issue have been addressed it does not matter who wrote it or who created it. Youreallycan (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen COI templates on many articles in all stages of maturity. Clearly, several editors on this page feel it should be attached, and until consensus shows that it should be removed, the COI tag should be left in place. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The general value of COI templates is a short term one and imo not of any value in this case when its an editors declaring an interest. The COI template is usually used in a kind of name and shame manner and as such is not of benefit to the actual article. If you have real issues with the content please state them here so that I can work to resolve them. Youreallycan (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I call bullshit on the article tags

(I think that's how you phrase such challenges.) I've been pointed at this page by WWB Too, and read what seems to me to be a neutral and factual article. I've read the talk page and an unimpressed and underwhelmed by the repeated theme of editors arguing for the continuance of the tags, but refusing point blank to provide any substance whatsoever to justify their retention. The nearest I've seen (and I paraphrase) is that because we're dealing with a lobby group there must be some dirt on them which should be included. It may well be the case that there is negative comment to be dug up about them should anyone want to do the spadework. But that it not a sufficient reason for festooning the article with tags like a Christmas tree.

I'm going to go out onto not much of a limb here and state my guess that the tags exist as a reaction to the fact that the article was written by an editor with COI, and - at least as at the state of the article as I read it this morning - for no other good reason.

So. It is my intention to remove the tags within the next 48 hours unless there is on this page sufficient substantiation of the issues which require the tags to remain. I'm satisfied from the discussions above that sufficient critical eyes have viewed the page that it is unlikely merely by leaving the tags to mature like some venerable cheese, that new insight will be visited on the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my stars and garters, lookit there, our paid-writer WWB appears to be canvassing not only in YouReallyCan's neighbourhood, but also in Tagishsimon's. [14] Sorry, Simon, but a paid editor's shopping trip and its resultant couple of strident editors' threat to remove tags on an arbitrary deadline does not constitute or supplant consensus, which does not yet exist to remove the tags. So I guess I'm calling bullshit on your calling bullshit. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You should just please comment as to the request above as regards what your specific issues are in regard to the content - without that clarity how can we resolve your content issues, please forget your personal issues and stay on topic. Consensus does not keep templates on articles - clear specific reasons that benefit the article do. Actually - there are here three users that seem to be insisting without clear explanations on keeping the templates and there are three users here that are asking for good reasons to keep them or to remove them - so there is no such consensus for the templates ongoing existence. Youreallycan (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Youreallycan (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jenova is the one who started this string and he clearly stated that he wasn't available until after the holidays. For what it's worth - coming from another COI editor - I don't see why he shouldn't be given 24 days instead of 24 hours to post more thoughtful feedback on the article. King4057 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed i did, and i saw the earlier discussion on Mr Chopper's talk page and set out to put a stop to a live article with clear problems.

Mr Choppers gave a great rebuttal to WWB that he refuses to admit to and infact ignores whenever messaging me.

If there is no clear consensus to clean up the article then i support deletion.

Pointing out you have a WP:COI is good, but then not taking on board criticism from editors giving it is not enough to say that the article is neutral since getting advice and using it are different things.

Thanks Jenova20 12:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of litigation

I did a little searching and found news articles about various litigation the group has initiated. They sued to block E15 ethanol [15], and went to court against the states of California and Massachusetts[16][17][18] to block them from having their own emissions standards, as well as setting targets for zero emissions vehicles. I don't know if this is a comprehensive survey of the Association of Global Automakers/Association of International Automobile Manufacturers history of bringing suits, but I think it would make sense to try to note at least those court cases that drew attention in the major media.

Furthermore, each of these cases had another side, not just the Association's point of view. It would make sense summarize what the defendants (the states of California and Massachusetts, etc) had to say for themselves, as well as the positions of major organizations that filed briefs. For example, the Sierra Club and six other environmental groups intervened in one of the California suits. The article should tell us which points these groups disagreed with the Association over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Mr Choppers said there was some dirt already but WWB, even with having a connection to the company couldn't find any and also couldn not think of any.

If Mr Choppers can find it and so can anyone else with a google search then this WP:COI clearly goes much deeper than stated by WWB Jenova20 12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirt? I am not seeing any dirt. An automotive group does this sort of stuff. In the UK we have the Automobile Association they seem to be a similar group, they oppose all sorts of legislation that they see as restrictive to car drivers. If its worth adding then go for it, but it's not "dirt" its the sort of stuff groups like this are involved in. Youreallycan (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it dirt. It rather depends on your point of view. To me it's just some stuff that is missing from the article. (There are better venues than this talk page to make comments about other editors. Can we focus on the contents of the article, please?) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• - In 2007 the organization lost a case in California regarding a 2004 tailpipe standard that forces a reduction in emissions from small trucks and cars of around one third by 2016. The association had argued that a law from 1975 gave only the US Department of Transportation the right to set fuel emissions and that different guidelines in different states would be restrictive on model choice and raise the price of cars. Environmentalists welcomed the verdict as a victory against global warming.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-12-12-169769939_x.htm?csp=34|title=Judge rejects automakers' lawsuit|publisher=USA today|date=December 12, 2007|accessdate=January 1, 2012}}</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 January 2012
• http://www.cleancarscampaign.org/web-content/legal/legal.html Might not cite this source without further verification, but the timeline and list of further sources could be useful
• http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=6447 One example of strange bedfellows lined up opposed to ethanol. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Latin New Car Assessment Program

There are some pretty grim findings on the safety of cars in Latin America, where the kind of safety regulation seen in Europe and the US is absent. See [19] and [20]. In contrast, the Association of Global Automakers has a record of advocating reduced regulation, and "voluntary" standards [21][22][23]. In the case of reducing the force of air bags, there are compelling arguments on both sides, though the near total absence of air bags in many counties is unfortunate. We should probably look for a direct response from Global Automakers to the Latin New Car Assessment Program's findings. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in a search but there are statements/releases three returns on the org's website from a search for NCAP. Youreallycan (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AGAM, AIAM, AAM, etc.

Folks, when seeking additional material to broaden and deepen the coverage in this article, we need to be careful we're looking at the right group. The subject of this article, under any of its three names, is not the same entity as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Easy mistake, especially because of acronymic similarity between the AAM and the organisation formerly known as AIAM. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's kind of a point of fracture between Detroit's Automobile Manufacturers Association/Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. In general, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (now our Global Automakers) was frequently more "green"; they tended to favor environmental legislation, or at least be willing to negotiate in a productive way.[24][25] Typically because things like fuel economy standards hurt their US competitors more and play to the advantages of Japanese and European cars against larger and less technologically advanced US cars. But Toyota didn't always toe the line, and sometimes threw in with Detroit: [26] (interesting read).

That's only a quick and dirty summary. The point being there is a complicated story to tell here, with a variety of conflicting motives of the various parties involved. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, but we still have to keep these various organisations separate. Unless and until it can be shown they're different in name only, actually one and the same—which I don't think it can—they must be treated as separate entities and we must take care when scrutinising potential refs for this article to make sure they're apposite to this article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's compare and contrast. They have some things in common, and some things that are different. Understanding that is insight, which is why you discuss them (briefly) in the same article. You'd have a terrible time comprehending liquid if no mention of gas and solid were allowed.

Toyota breaking ranks is important because the appearance that Global Automakers is a big happy family is misleading and should be corrected. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotchya, I understand what you're saying. Yes, I agree. Please boldly go and add this content, supporting all assertions reliably. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Common word usage

With the problems already being sorted in this article, can we not add more with words like "deleterious" instead of "distracting"/"dangerous" and "trade group" instead of "lobby group" since they serve only to hide the real meaning with a less known or shady word and create more problems. And not to mention how much easier it is to read the article simplified. Thanks Jenova20 09:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We do need to avoid obfuscation, but "deleterious" is not a weasel word. It is also not synonymous with "distracting" or "dangerous". Please look up words you're not closely familiar with before declaring them problematic, thank you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I went by the Google definition of "Causing harm or damage." and thought either distracting or dangerous was the better option since it's common sense when added to the article.

I didn't say it was a weasel word but it's not the most common word we could have used.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and having people looking up sections of an article to understand them defeats the objective. Also not everyone's as well educated or will have come across some of these words before.

Thanks Jenova20 17:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopædia. The purpose of an encyclopædia is to inform; we do readers a disservice by denying them the opportunity to learn something they didn't know before. We do not dumb down the content of an article to a 3rd-grade or USA Today level; instead we have tools by which for more advanced, more precisely apposite words to be defined for readers who may not be familiar with them. I have linked "deleterious" to its wiktionary entry; problem solved. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

doesn't change the fact though that if it's done too often an article becomes unreadable Jenova20 10:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Driver distraction

(I was going to hijack the thread above but I'll start a new section instead)

We have all the time in the world to tweak the wording to get it just right. This isn't an FA candidate, after all.

A more important question is why automakers generally support handheld cell phone (and texting and navigation, etc etc) bans but not banning hands-free. And definitely not banning all driver-distracting infotainment. Consistent with every other position taken by the Global Automakers noted in this article, the obvious motive is profit and market share. Why sell a customer just a cell phone when you can upsell them a hands-free device? Or better yet, offer an array of hands-free phone options at the factory, along with navigation, entertainment and more. And making hands-free mandatory certainly helps motivate the customer to make that purchase. Also, putting new features on the market that didn't exist int he past gives consumers a reason to "need" a new car rather than keep driving their old car.

A good starting point for this research is the Consumer Reports blog; they've talked about this many times[27] most recently with Ford's use of parental controls to make their system more palatable to the safety-conscious.[28]

I'm not trying to bash Global Automakers for being motivated by profit. Of course they're motivated by profit. What else would motivate them? It's what they do. A more subtle question is whether the increased injuries and deaths from hands-free driver distracting devices will harm their brands in the long term, merely for short term gain. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"A more subtle question is whether the increased injuries and deaths from hands-free driver distracting devices will harm their brands in the long term, merely for short term gain."

You mean in the same way that occasional car accidents stop people from driving/jogging or walking to the shops?

Isn't that going to virtually impossible to prove against this company and POV?

Thanks Jenova20 10:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

POV problem with the assumption that Global Automakers is only a champion of free trade, and not defending "dumping"

Another POV problem with this article is that it is written on the assumption that Global Automakers is purely a champion of free trade and opposes protectionism. "Protectionist" is a loaded word, after all. It ignores the fact that those who created the so-called "protectionist" laws believed themselves to be responding to a Japanese practice of dumping to unfairly undermine US companies.

This POV bias pervades the entire article; essentially those who were on the other side against Global Automakers in these various disputes are treated as if they don't exist. Or they're abstracted as "protectionists" rather than named specifically. There was a "who" behind the laws passed affecting the Nissan Pathfinder, and there are specific people we can refer to by name -- analysts, unions, automakers, and politicians -- who advanced the argument that the tariffs were a just response to dumping, as they saw it.

As with the fuel economy and environmental issues, the article should not treat Global Automakers as if it exists in a vacuum. It should state what Global Automakers asserted was true, and then state what the other side asserted. Another way of saying this is that a group that worked on behalf of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. was by definition working against GM, Ford, etc, and the US auto workers as well. I'm not saying the article should rehash every dispute in detail, but it should be worded in a way that treats the issue as having two (or more) sides, not only one side. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Major revision

The original creator of this article, User:WWB Too, has made a new draft of this article. Per his current interpretation of best practices for paid writers, rather than edit the article directly, he has brought that draft for discussion to WP:Wikiproject Cooperation, which is a group that exists to connect "regular" editors with COI editors. We regularly review the suggestions of COI editors, checking to make sure that they meet all of our policies. A discussion of WWB Too's proposed changes has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help#Revisiting Global Automakers, and myself and a few other editors believe that the suggestions are a definite improvement--they are both better written, as well as cleaning up the quality of the sourcing. We would like to move the draft version into mainspace; however, I think it's best to ask for the input of other involved editors first. If no one has any comments in the next week or so, we'll be moving article over, but please join that discussion and let us know. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the edits made by User:WWB Too here are a big improvement; I have copied the text over. bobrayner (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2016

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: Not moved. No support other than the nom, and assertion that this is the new name appears to be false. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Association of Global Automakers → Association of International Automobile Manufacturers – Organization changed its name. Hugh (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

AGA is the current name of the organization. AIAM was the old name. No change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.153.173 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, that is definitely the old name. However, Global Automakers appears to be even more common than "Association of Global Automakers".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:32, 16 February 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Association of Global Automakers. 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/20120423071712/http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/GA%20Production%20and%20Sales%20September%202011.pdf to http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/GA%20Production%20and%20Sales%20September%202011.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newsinmi.com/ex-u-s-auto-exec-john-bozzella-named-to-run-association-of-global-automakers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426081409/http://www.aiam.org/public/doclibrary/pressreleases/EPA%20California%20waiver%20press%20release%20and%20backgrounder%20_final%20%20022908_.pdf to http://www.aiam.org/public/doclibrary/pressreleases/EPA%20California%20waiver%20press%20release%20and%20backgrounder%20_final%20%20022908_.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110729080738/http://www.dctechsource.com:80/aiam_supports_ban_on_texting_and_hand-held_phones_while_driving.aspx to http://www.dctechsource.com/aiam_supports_ban_on_texting_and_hand-held_phones_while_driving.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)