Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV dispute

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? It seems pretty balanced to me, and a person claiming it is not neutral is supposed to put in here why they think it is not neutral. From NPOV dispute:

"If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article."

Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to re-add the tag. The vast majority of the article deals with refuting the idea of a conspiracy without actually detailing the conspiracy theory at all.-RomeW (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about this: 2. Supreme Court docket No. 186 F2d 562, 1949 dml 14:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Popular Culture

This scandal was referenced in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Not directly, and you don't see it coming until the end. The movie starts out with the controversy that if Marvin Acme's will cannot be found by midnight, then his Toontown property will be sold to Cloverleaf Industries, which recently purchased the Red Car Trolley Line, the last trolley line in the area. At the end of the movie Judge Doom reveals that not only does he have a vendetta against the citizens of Toontown, but that he is the secret owner of Cloverleaf Industries, and that his grand scheme is to shut down the Red Line, destroy Toontown and build a new Interstate highway. With no other transportation option, government will be forced to pay him to build the new Interstate and citizens will be forced to pay his tolls to travel on it, as well as purchase cars, tires, gasoline, and other things which his Cloverleaf Industries has an investment in.

Kamnet (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The film The End of Suburbia speaks about the scandal in depth. [ http://www.endofsuburbia.com/] UrbanNerd (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 06:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Um ... this article doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. It says "conspiracy." This is accurate in that there was a conviction for conspiracy.

There was a conviction for a conspiracy that didn't involve street car companies. Namely GM forcing it's bus-line subsidiary to buy GM buses. Isn't that the case? 208.181.1.157 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

However, a better title would be "U.S. vs. National City Lines," the name of the case with "GM streetcar conspiracy" as a redirect. GM wasn't the only defendant. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right about the title for this article. However the renaming proposal keeps growing. It now includes articles that have the terms "conspiracy claims", "misinformation" and "rumor" in their titles as well. -Willmcw 07:23, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Duh! There is already a stub United States v. National City Lines Inc.. This article should be added to it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Woulncha know. I hate it when that happens. A while back I foud a stub, invested consederable effort researching material to expand it, and last week someone merged it into another article that had been there the whole time, under a slightly different capitalization. Do you want to add a merge tag? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The title is good as is. People who have heard about the conspiricy claims and want to read up on it will find the article. But few people have heard of National City Lines, and wouldn't think to look there for an article. Sluggoster (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The title is not acceptable. It is a hyperbolic, fantastical name invented by a wikipedia editor and attested nowhere else.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For further discussion in 2011 in relation to the article title please refer to the 'Article name' section and the 'Contested move' sections below. PeterEastern (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the article space

If National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, and American City Lines, the three major front companies, and their investors couldn’t make big money on buses, why did they tear up and scrap rail lines that they had paid good money for? Because that money was a pittance compared with how much they began making on cars, trucks, tires, gasoline, asphalt, and highway building. And, of course, they also made the buses and the bus tires and the diesel fuel for the buses that they sold to themselves (their bus companies) – and later, claiming intolerable losses, they sold the bus companies to municipalities trying to help their lower income people get around. An internal memo at Mack Truck that surfaced at the conspiracy trial explained it tersely: the “probable loss” for the investors in the bus companies would be “more than justified by the business and gross profit flowing out of this move in years to come” (Ref;jonathan Kwityny, "The Great Transportation Conspiracy," 'This World Magazine, San Francisoco Chronicle,'March 1, 1981, p.19''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.81.117 (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a "cut-and-paste" job, if someone wants to verify this info and incorporate it into the article text, be my guest.--Lord Kinbote 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Wow, this article is chock-full of weasel words. I can't tell what things it says in the article actually happened. This is a problem. —pfahlstrom 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

New form

By my direction, this article has been re-molded into a form that completely disregards the allegation that it is a "conspiracy theory," since the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are themselves POV. The current version approaches this whole thing as fact, and I've done my best to keep arguments from both proponents and critics in line with the article's flow while eliminating any potential POV jargon or the back and forth that was evident in the article as it stood when it was under its Conspiracy name.

Others may still feel that this article deserves the name conspiracy. If that emerges as the consensus, fine. But let's have a real chat about this first, undaunted by those in the auto industry and its supporters who would come on here and intentionally plant doubts in our heads by making the format of the article intentionally uncertain, which as we all know is in their interest to do. Kiko 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are "planting thoughts in your head". Did you run out of tinfoil or something?--Rotten 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the current version crazy? It doesn't really do much to alter the content; it just changes the form to something more straightforward and clearly comprehensible. If you're calling the current revision crazy, you're saying it's crazy to challenge the belief that the streetcar scandal didn't happen, which is itself POV. 24.215.188.44 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rising real estate prices?

I don't see the link.

Are you saying rising real estate prices "Forced" transit companies to sell off real estate holdings in order to remain financially viable - a connection I don't understand ... or they sold real estate holdings because it was more profitable than running a transit line - a connection I do understand but BIG DIFFERENCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James D. Rockefeller (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Simple, a transit company would build a line and houses would be build along the line, as people had acess to the transit line. Eventually, these prices got so high, that as roads were built to these areas, and people started to buy cars, the transit companies sold-off land in these areas as a form of "Self Subsidization" because of declining ridership. -comment was added by Screamingman14 at 11:41 AM EDT on August 7th 2007.

The real estate connection with tram lines alluded to is reversed. Tram lines were created in order to add value to real estate holdings. The process: purchase undeveloped acreage on the outskirts of a city; build a rail line to service the area; subdivide and sell off lots for development at a profit. This process can profitably be done over a period of 20-30 years, which coincidentally is the usable life of the rails and rolling stock of the trams, after which capital replacement is needed. So when the profit has all been extracted, it is "economic" to sell off or abandon the tram line company. Umbrete (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"The scandal alleges that NCL's companies had an ulterior motive..."

How can a scandal allege something? This allegation should sourced to someone specific.--Eloil 12:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Overcapitalization in article name

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), this article should be renamed to Great American streetcar scandal, as "American" is the only proper noun in the title. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Questionable statements in article

The article alleges that streetcars were not replaced during WWII. In fact during WWII automobiles were not replaced either because our manufacturing system was focused on war material. Streetcars are extremely durable machines and could easily be maintained during the war. New Orleans has streetcars made prior to WWII which are still running fine and give excellent service.

The article carefully omits the PCC streetcar which was designed during the 1930's as an improvement on the older designs and is still being manufactured and used all over the world.

While private automobiles are popular they are extremely expensive to operate even with massive government subsidies of a road system which is almost free to the driver. Many people would ride streetcars if only government authorities would allow us to. An example of a new successful line is New Jersey Transit's new light rail River Line between Trenton and Camden which has had to increase rush hour service from half hour to 15 minute headways to keep up with demand.

Street cars are not necessarily slow; on city streets traffic causes all vehicles to operate slowly. However it is possible to provide dedicated right of ways for street cars which allow for rapid operation. In the past this was frequently done. However many of those right of ways have been lost to us because they were abandoned in the conversion to buses.

These are only a few statements to correct the false impressions built into this article.

John Rydberg

Hi John. Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest that you may want to create an account so you can have a user name. Also, please sign your posts by placing four tildes (~~~~) after your post. The system will automatically replace these with your IP address (or user name, if logged in).

You make many good points; however, these mainly relate to advocacy for light rail transit (or streetcars). We may not make our own arguments here, per se, but we may contribute facts that are properly sourced and presented in a non-POV fashion that may balance an article.

This article addresses not only the "conspiracy" or "scandal" but other causes that contributed to the decline of streetcars. Certainly National City Lines had an impact, but it was not the only factor. You particular point about streetcars in World War is accurate insofar as the durability of streetcars is concerned, but you must also be aware that streetcars and rail systems, like any other infrastructure, must be maintained. Rail transit had to be heavily used during World War II with minimal repair. By the end of the war, major expenditures were required to bring the systems up to a good state of repair. In many cases there was neither the will not the money to do so. This was one of the many "tipping points" that worked against streetcar systems. -- Cecropia 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to cite the Interstate highway System as complicit in the "conspiracy", to the extent there was or wasn't one. The Interstate system wasn't even approved until several years later. I suppose you could simply cite federal and state roadbuilding as a factor that hastened the demise of streetcars, but that hardly fits in as a conspiracy. 75.21.83.33 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Phoenix, Arizona included in the list? Phoenix's bus and street railway system had been purchased by the City in 1925, and continued to be city-owned and operated well past the 1950s. Most of their bus purchases in the 1930s through 1950 were from Ford, which tends to refute the anti-trust contention. Does anyone have evidence that Phoenix was actually involved in this? Wlindley (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked through a couple of pieces by Snell (e.g.[1]) and haven't found Phoenix. Phoenix was added as a single entry on Aug. 27, 2008 by an unsigned user @24.121.32.249 without citation. Since I don't see it in any refs, I'll take it out. I'd like to see the source of the "100 systems in 45 cities" part myself ... the cite is to the OSU History Dept.... Twang (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I found a source for the 100 systems/45 cities figures: it's Snell(1974) quoted by Paul Matus in Third Rail. (see added cite) Twang (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are some not interested in the public seeing both sides of the debate?????

The simple fact is this: just because the CATO study leaves out smaller details does not mean the opposing argument should be deleted entirely!

Your side leaves out the simple fact that streetcars were invented over 150 years ago, pre-dating the automobile, and virtually all modes of transport except the bicycle, and horse and buggy. The rise of the private automobile and combustion engine is the basic reason why streetcars died.

I lived in Melbourne, Australia, which has the one of the world's largest streetcar network, 120+ mile of lines, and loved riding it on occasion, but even I recognize that we something is old, its old, and above all, I recognize the value of fairness.

Using your logic, we should delete your entire side of the article because it leaves out this "big picture" basic point.Hoopsworldscout 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Elements section was being made redundant by your added section. I deleted your section and introduced two new arguments into the 'Elements' section. If you see something I missed, you could help expand the Elements section with your further observations of conditions at the time. Binksternet 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once more I have to say that your section entitled Opposing Argument is somewhat covered in the Elements section. There's work you can do to bring more of the arguments to bear from within the Elements section, but don't keep bringing the Opposing Argument section in! Your first sentence's first three words are patently untrue: "The simple reality..." There is no simple reality in this situation. There are many viewpoints each loaded with strong proponents. Oh, and your CATO block quote selection still includes their "...little more than an urban legend that has been debunked..." bit of extreme POV. Binksternet 02:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Being fair and unbiased means granting at least equal space for both sides. Relegating one side to a few tiny lines buried in the elements section is far from sufficient.Hoopsworldscout 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to expand beyond "a few tiny lines" but the article isn't helped by the phrases "simple reality" nor "urban legend". Binksternet 03:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will delete those words.Hoopsworldscout 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I must be stupid, but I only see one "side" of the debate: the article title is "Great American Streetcar Scandal", but spend 90% of its content talking about "Non-conspiratorial causes of the decline of the streetcar", and, after reading it, there is zero trace of the scandal. Definitely a biased article, as it leaves the impression that Streetcars disappeared for some natural reasons... 82.230.65.68 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems this argument has carried quite a long time. Let me state that this scandal is TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT in many of my Urban Planning courses. And it is (the scandal or whatever you call it) cited as one of several major impetuses in the changing of the urban landscape in scholarly works. Suffice to say, it is a paramount breaking point in U.S. history -- from public a private transportation society -- that it affects all aspects of modern public policy and governance. It is only that the exact details of the "scandal" or "conspiracy" are not easy to spell out. So let me perhaps suggest for consensus that we accept this has occurred, it is not an urban legend, and instead focus on how we can portray and edit this article to the best extent of WP guidelines. .:DavuMaya:. 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Lopsided

I've heard a few, unsourced claims made on both sides of this argument, and was hoping to find more information here. Instead, I'm just confused: why does the article spend so much time debunking the conspiracy without giving me any more than the most superficial details as to what it even was or is claimed to have been? Can someone who knows more please flesh out the other side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.37.252 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the trial detail itself is missing which would balance out the undue weight given to "Other explanations." But consider that they were convicted regardless if there are dozens of other explanations, they still got the boot. It appears that section is more focused on explaining why streetcars failed as transit instead of the Scandal topic itself. It may be we need to spin some of that information into a History of streetcars page. .:davumaya:. 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The scandal was that GM bought the streetcars in bad faith, not to run them but to sabotage them. Sluggoster (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed material

I removed the following text:

The CATO Institute, a libertarian think-tank, chose its language carefully: stating that General Motors alone never controlled more than a "small fraction" of streetcars is misleading. The issue is whether NCL – of which GM was a part in affiliation with Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and Phillips Petroleum – controlled a substantial amount of the streetcar industry between 1936 and 1950; in this context, this also renders the notion of GM controlling no streetcars after 1949 as somewhat of an aside.

The text appears to be an unsourced analysis by a wikipedia editor.

If a reference to a high-quality source can be found which indicates that the NCL consortium did in fact own more than a "small fraction" of the streetcar industry, then that fact can be added. Right now, however, the text raises "issues" without providing any evidence. If no such reference is found, then this opinion must not be included.Twerges (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Considerable unsourced material

There has been a tremendous amount of unsourced material that was tagged as needing citations for months, then someone hid it, waiting for references. Synchronism then unhid it, and asked that another month of exposure be added. Per WP:CS, I'm removing the material and placing it here on the talk page for someone to evaluate and source, if appropriate. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 is quite certainly true. There are myriad links and sources discussing this, from both rail and trolley fans as well as opponents. I added a few links and restored most of the information to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.17 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Capital costs

Because electric motors are far simpler than internal combustion engines and steel-on-steel vehicles do not need the elaborate sprung suspensions of rubber-tired vehicles traveling on asphalt, streetcars themselves are actually much cheaper to maintain than buses and are far more durable. (1930s-vintage PCC streetcars still operated in Toronto, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Cleveland well into the 1970s. San Francisco has acquired PCCs from Philadelphia and Newark, and runs them along with its own PCCs on its F Market & Wharves heritage streetcar line. The Toronto cars have been moved to Kenosha, Wisconsin and still run on a daily basis.) However, streetcar companies had to maintain their own rights-of-way, while bus operators traveled on publicly maintained roads. Additionally, maintenance of rails and catenary along a given route required that it be shut down, resulting in a total loss of revenue for the period and defection of riders to buses and private automobiles. During the Great Depression, streetcar companies had poor access to capital markets, making borrowing for costly refurbishment of rails and catenary nearly impossible. Because raising fares was difficult due to low demand and streetcar companies' public unpopularity , switching to buses became that much more desirable.

Labor costs

A far greater cost savings offered by buses was the result of the labor laws of the day. In many states, streetcar systems' status as regulated utilities entitled their employees to bargain collectively, long before the Wagner Act. As a result, during the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, a streetcar system attempting to eliminate the position of conductor and move to one-man operation would usually find itself on the receiving end of a strike by its transit union. Transit unions, however, generally did not require two-man operation on buses.

Congestion

Beginning in the late 1910s, first in central business districts and later in other areas of cities, automobile congestion became a serious impediment to transit operations in areas where operators did not have private rights-of-way. (Congestion in downtown Los Angeles became so bad by the early 1920s that Pacific Electric Railway built, at its own expense, a mile-long subway for use by routes serving Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, even though few of these lines were profitable.) Automobile congestion delayed transit vehicles, which reduced their desirability for discretionary riders, who then switched to the automobile; in turn, the increased number of automobiles on the road caused transit performance to deteriorate even further. This affected buses and streetcars alike, but while buses could divert to less congested routes, rerouting streetcar and electric trolley bus lines would have required additional construction.

Jitneys, monopoly, and municipalization

Almost as soon as buses became available, jitney services arose as competition to streetcars. Jitneys often traveled the same routes as streetcars, but increasingly moved away from the main roads to pick up passengers. (Economist William Fischel attributes the spread of zoning laws in the 1920s to the increased mobility provided to the poor by buses: because the transit-dependent no longer had to live within walking distance of a streetcar line, the construction of multifamily housing became viable in areas that had previously been inaccessible due to distance alone.) In response, many streetcar operators sought—and obtained—monopoly power over public transportation on the routes they served. (For example, Pacific Electric successfully lobbied the Los Angeles City Council to ban jitneys from operating within the city.) With competition thus eliminated, many streetcar companies reduced or eliminated service on unprofitable lines and raised fares on others.

Coupled with existing resentment of "traction magnates" such as Samuel Insull and Henry Huntington, these fare hikes and service cuts led many suburban municipalities to start their own jitney companies. For example, during the 1920s and 1930s, Pacific Electric fare hikes and service reductions led to the formation of municipal bus services in the Los Angeles suburbs of Santa Monica, Culver City, Montebello, and Torrance, among others. Movements also began to challenge streetcar monopolies in central cities. In Los Angeles, a labor-led coalition nearly succeeded in passing a referendum to establish a city-owned bus company. In New York, Fiorello La Guardia railed against New York Railways and Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation, the city's principal streetcar operators, championing municipal operation of buses and expansion of the city-owned IND subway service. Municipalization in Chicago, for which calls began as early as the 1920s and which finally occurred in 1946, also led to the elimination of streetcar service.

Public utility divestment

The economic populism prevalent during the Great Depression also had a serious negative impact on streetcar companies, in the form of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Because streetcar companies were often the biggest single customers of electric utilities, they often were owned partially or wholly by the utilities themselves, which then supplied them with electricity at substantially discounted rates. The passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act forced utilities to divest themselves of streetcar lines. The newly independent lines then had to purchase electricity at full price from their former parents, shaving their already thin margins that much more.

Road construction

Federal subsidy of highway construction did not have as large an impact on streetcars as many assume: prior to the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (the "Interstate Highway Act"), federal funding of road-building largely focused on highways between – not within – regions. States and localities funded a great deal of urban road upgrading and construction, often from general funds (rather than the fuel excise taxes that funded federal highways). In some cases, however, a specific tax on street users was imposed; because the most easily identifiable street user was the streetcar company, it often bore the largest share of these specific taxes, even though it would not benefit from the resulting paving and upgrading. For the most part, the desire to alleviate traffic congestion motivated these efforts. However, many legislatures and leaders — heavily lobbied by automakers, to be sure — sought to accelerate mode shift from streetcars and railroads and toward cars and trucks, promoted by the automobile industry as instruments of progress.

Suburbanization

From the 1880s onward, streetcar companies in the United States were often active agents of suburbanization. In Los Angeles, Henry Huntington, owner of the Los Angeles Railway and the principal shareholder of Pacific Electric's parent Southern Pacific, used the lure of streetcar service to drastically raise the value of undeveloped suburban property owned by his associates, who in turn passed along large portions of their post-subdivision profits to Huntington. However, in most areas, zoning laws—first used in the 1910s and widely enacted following the Supreme Court's 1926 ruling in Euclid v. Ambler (272 U.S. 365)—prevented the development of dwellings other than single-family homes in most suburban areas. Prior to the establishment of the Federal Housing Administration, generally only the relatively well-to-do could obtain a mortgage on a suburban house; these were generally among the first to adopt the automobile. As a result, interurban streetcar lines rarely made money—Pacific Electric, the best-known interurban operator, was unprofitable on virtually all of its routes, particularly the long runs from downtown Los Angeles to Orange County and the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys—and streetcar companies converted these lines to buses as early as the 1920s, if they did not abandon them outright.

--Why was this section deleted? I came to the discussion page to raise a question about the assertion in the article that streetcars were not able to serve post-war sprawl based on this very issue. See streetcar suburb. While the second half of the paragraph appears to be overly specific and not as relevant to the article, the article would benefit from the return of the first two sentences of this paragraph. AusJeb (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Inability to serve suburban sprawl?

Under "Other Contributing Factors," the article notes the inability of streetcars to serve sprawling suburbs. This is not the case as streetcars were one of the main means for serving the suburbs built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. See streetcar suburbs. AusJeb (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a worldwide view of subject

This article suffers from looking at the US in isolation, when streetcars/trams were dismantled across many cities worldwide at or around the same time. So either there was an equivalent conspiracy responsible for the abandonment of trams in London, Paris, etc (which scarcely seems likely) or there is a common non-conspiratorial cause. Is anyone aware of any reliable sources considering these issues? LeContexte (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, LC. By definition, it's the Great American streetcar scandal, talking about a specific event. tedder (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a civil conspiracy in the United States in which streetcar systems were deliberately destroyed. This article does look at an isolated incident that certainly has some parallels elsewhere, but it's basically an article about a court case, United States v. National City Lines Inc..In the US there was a proven conspiracy. This article aims to cover that in depth, I hope. There is probably a need for a global look at streetcar dismantlement as a whole article by itself, but I daresay the effects were far more drastic and irretrievable in the case of the United States than in say Europe and that the event would still warrant its own (albeit highly connected) article.Synchronism (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Synchronism. This was a specific and proven conspiracy that encompassed large metropolitan centers in the United States... it just happened to occur at the same approximate time as a number of transit systems worldwide were taking it on the chin. Over the course of several decades following Ford's first automobile assembly line, riders opted in droves to buy their own private cars and so achieve a greater sense of independence, leaving mass transit conveyances relatively riderless while creating traffic gridlock. Terrible timing for trams. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The GASCS is unique because it's the only known concentrated and systematic example of its type in an industrialized country that would otherwise have had an extensive countrywide mass transit network from which that country never returned. In Europe, mass transit may have been dismantled at various similar points, but the overall history is different, the war (WW2) necessitated aggressive infrastructure rebuilds that immediately put widespread mass transit back in the running, and today, the systems on the European continent and its immediate neighbors are the most modern, the most powerful and the most extensive in the world-- and they keep growing. That's the biggest difference between other mass transit scandals and the GASCS. The United States never recovered and adopted instead a permanent car-culture from which it has sometimes tried, and repeatedly failed, to extract itself. A very sad state of affairs as the US population has to watch its own mass transit continue to be sh*t while the rest of the world builds these big beautiful new transit projects. One of several reasons I'm leaving to go live in London (and then the rest of earth). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Broken link in notes

http://hometown.aol.com/chirailfan/holdbun.html redirects to a shutdown page: http://www.peopleconnectionblog.com/2008/11/06/hometown-has-been-shutdown

--Zahzuhzaz (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-contradiction and blatant POV

I've added "Contradict" and "POV" tags at the top of the article because it claims in the intro that GM's actions re. the trolley companies were the main reason for their collapse, despite many facts quoted in the body of the article that contradict this view (for example, that bit about lack of capital investment in the '30s and '40s causing deterioration of the physical plant, or about electricity discounts being no longer available once the power companies sold the trolley operations, or a whole bunch of other stuff). Anyway -- if you read the body of the article carefully, you'll see that there were a whole bunch of other, non-conspiratorial reasons for the decline of the trolleys, and that GM's actions were only one small factor in that (if indeed they were a factor at all). To present the "conspiracy" as the biggest factor in the decline of the trolley lines is nothing short of POV pushing, and also is contradicted by most of the evidence in the article. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, but good luck in correcting the problem. This is the classic conspiracy theory article, which I tried to edit to correct last year. I gave up when the theory was vigorously defended by one of its advocates. I felt my efforts could be put to better use elsewhere. If there is a consensus to change it to reflect the facts, let me know and I'll revisit it.Vontrotta (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support, I didn't know there were any other people left on Wikipedia who don't believe in conspiracy theories. Yeah, I'll try putting in some inconvenient facts that contradict this theory if I can find a reliable source; but since the article already presents several alternative explanations for the streetcar lines' demise, I'll just keep it tagged for POV and leave it as it is for now. And please keep up your good work on getting the truth out, Wikipedia needs you. (BTW, you can call me Danny, or if you prefer, Sir Daniel the Red/White/Blue WikiKnight on a Crusade to Cleanse Wikipedia of Anti-American Bias. :-D ) Well anyway, keep up the good work, and clear skies to you! 146.74.230.81 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly you might need to review the difference between Conspiracy theory and Institutional analysis --Ice Czar —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

The trouble with this entire article is that 1) there was a conspiracy by the listed players, but 2) it was to replace the streetcars by GM's buses, not by the competition's buses. They were able to buy up dying streetcar businesses, and force them to buy GM's buses. Streetcar lovers have been ever trying to push the idea that absent this conspiracy, we would still have streetcars. We wouldn't. They were dying. Even the railfans at railroad.net (who have no love for buses) agree that the streetcars were pushed out of business by automobiles, not by the conspiracy. The question, then, is how to refactor this article so it isn't confused. --RussNelson (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is no more a place to discuss the primary cause of the decline of streetcars than a place to discuss what would have happened if National City Lines et al never did what they did. Many sources target NCL et al as simply a hastener of the decline. The article does not make the conjecture anywhere that had NCL not replaced many streetcar systems they would still be around ^{(that is probably only valid in describing only those systems in the largest cities but could still be included in the article given references)}. The article does carefully state the extreme opposite position (they were all doomed to fail) with references. There was a good deal of material about the contemporaneous factors that contributed to the decline of streetcars in the US, but it was removed due to a lack of requested references (look up the page at #Considerable Unsourced Material, much of that could be restored with references, which are out there, and they don't necessarily come from railfans). I think this article is incomplete and a bit messy, but by no means confused or contradictory.Synchronism (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This article will never be POV until the title is changed. It's completely unencyclopedic--it seems to be a purposefully sensational name used nowhere else.Sylvain1972 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?Synchronism (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

How about renaming the aritcle to the National City Lines lawsuit? --RussNelson (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea -- The article should either be about United States v. National City Lines Inc, or about the decline of streetcars in the U.S. (and the lawsuit mentioned in that context).Cmck1980 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking up your suggestion, and in the absence of any argument to the contrary over the last year and a half, I'm moving the article to "Decline of streetcars in the United States."Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at reducing the contradiction, by sticking in an "allegedly" and rearranging the lede sentence somewhat. I think it's clear that while there was a confirmed conspiracy, it was to monopolize the sale of buses and parts, not to get rid of streetcars. Getting rid of the streetcars may well have been a goal stated in the smoke-filled private boardrooms of GM et al., but I doubt we'll ever prove it. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

July/August 2010 edits

The recent edits incorrectly use the trial outcomes which found GM et al innocent of attempting to use monopoly power to destroy light rail lines as proof that GM did just that. The intro paragraph contained POV language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.43.117 (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a citation to a reliable source for your contention, Otherwise, your edit, which removed a citation to a reliable source, will be reverted. — goethean ॐ 14:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I found another source which flatly contradicts your contention. I reverted your edit. Please don't removed content which cites a reliable source. — goethean ॐ 14:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The wiki article already contains the needed citations. Slater and others have shown that the transition to buses from light rail was due to economic conditions,. not due to a corporate conspiracy. The trust of the conspiracy theory is that the defendants purchased the rail lines with the intent of replacing them with bus lines. The courts acquitted the defendants of this charge. The opening paragraph as you reverted to can be taken to mean the courts DID find the defendants guilty of this charge and only fined then $5000. The actually guilty conviction was related to the monopolizing of the sales of parts and supplies to City Line companies which switched over to buses. In other words, in cases where the line made a reasonable choice to switch from light rail to buses they were then forced to buy only from the defendants. It is important, in order to maintain a neutral POV that mentions of the convictions make it clear that the defendants were acquitted of the charges that they conspired to dismantle the light rail lines. I have performed a second edit of the intro that retains the mention of the convictions as well as clarifies what the companies were and were not convinced of. --74.240.210.171 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit which seemed biased toward GM/Firestone/Standard Oil's innocence in the case. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have again changed the entry back to the one that indicates what the accused companies were and were not found guilty of. The earlier entry says that the companies were found guilty but doesn't mention WHAT they were found guilty of. The thrust of the conspiracy narrative is the companies bought the light rail lines with the intent to tear up the tracks and then install bus lines. The defendants were found innocent of that charge. The earlier into made it sound like their innocents was in question or only argued by a few. In fact the very court ruling which is often cited as proof of guilt says they did NOT commit the crime that is the core of the conspiracy narrative.

What the defendants were found guilty of was attempting to force the bus lines they owned to purchase goods from the parent companies (GM buses, Firestone tire, etc). The defendants were found guilty of that particular charge. That conviction does not support the notion that the companies conspired to destroy light rail lines.

A neutral POV entry should not present the facts of the legal case in such a way as to suggest that the companies committed acts of which the courts found them to be innocent. It is factual to claim that the companies were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize services to the bus lines. It is not factual to state or imply that the companies were found guilty of conspiring to destroy light rail lines. Any opening paragraph which states or suggests as fact that the companies are guilty of conspiring to destroy light rail lines is simply not true and can not be considered neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.122.54 (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the talk page means bring up your argument, supply references and wait for others to discuss. Not change the article to your pov and then explain them unreferenced here. I'm not trying to be rude, but you have been repeatedly reverted and provided no references. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Again I have reverted your edit. The facts of the legal case are not in dispute. The tone of the earlier opening paragraph is not neutral because it implies that the defendants in the case are guilty of the alleged conspiracy. Please show that this is the case before reverting the edits again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.122.54 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Please justify the neutrality of the opening paragraph you are reverting to before reverting again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.122.54 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC) To add a bit more to my position. The first paragraph of the article states the conspiracy is that GM et al are accused a criminal conspiracy to tearing out rail lines and replacing them with bus lines. It does not say they were guilty of monopolizing the sale of goods and services to bus lines they owned. The very next sentence stated it is a fact that they were convicted and fined. The third sentence says people of some political persuasions believe the transition from line rail to bus would have happened anyway. The second sentence implies that they were found guilty at trial of the charges made in the first sentence. They were in fact found innocent of those charges. The third sentence suggests that even though they were guilty the change would happen anyway. So we have implied the conspiracy was found true but some people feel it would have happened regardless. The problem is that doesn't match the actual facts which is why I changed it. The fist statement correctly states the conspiracy theory. I've now changed the second sentence to state what they were actually found guilty of and removed the language implying that people use the guilty verdict as proof of the conspiracy. I did this because it was easier than finding a citation and because it could be considered as you said as favoring innocences vs guilt. I then added a third sentence saying the parties were found innocent of the charge that is the trust of the conspiracy theory. It is a fact that they were found innocent of conspiring to destroy light rail lines. If we are saying they were found guilty in court it is balanced to also say they were found innocent in court. The original text did not do this and was biased towards guilty by presenting the facts in a uneven fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.122.54 (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please gain consensus before major pov changes. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also please provided references to your claims. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of edits, in July the intro was changed to the one that suggests GM was guilty of conspiring to destroy the rail lines. That edit moved the intro away from the earlier, more neutral into. It also was done without any consensus. Mention of the trial outcome should include the entire outcome ie both the conviction and acquittals. Ideally it should also compare the conspiracy theory with the findings of the court.

Your request for references is a red herring. The same reference that shows the companies were found guilty of some counts shows they were acquitted of others. Do you dispute that fact? If you have an issue with the citations in the into in question please identify the points in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.40.219 (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do dispute that fact, hence why you need to provide references to prove your claim. Every article I have read claims GM was found guilty and not acquitted of the charges you claim. I have made a compromise on the article, please find references or it will be reverted. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't bothered to read the articles why are you editing the wiki? The information is summarized nicely in the Slater article (hence it was redundant to reference it). It is also part of the court records cited in the article. I've now added the redundant references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.158.76 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 edits

The added material contains what may be very good information however it contained no citations or references. UrbanNerd, you were very clear that previous information which suggested that the involved companies were not convicted of a crime needed to be cited. If you wish to remain neutral you need to require the same level of citation and scrutiny of material which damns the same companies. 98.87.33.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC). As examples of non-neutral or inciting statements added in the Sept 16th edits, consider the following added statements:

through various corporate disguises, bribery, graft, sabotage, arson, intimidation, and backed by racketeering,

Do we have any evidence of sabotage, arson or intimidation? Does that add credibility to the article? The background section does add a lot of information but it is not clearly cited and includes claims about demographic causes and effects that are possible outside the scope of this article. If the Immigration Restriction Act is going to be mentioned shouldn;t that have some sort of citation to show that it relates to the alleged conspiracy? If these facts all come from a single article then the article should be referenced several times in the text. After all it was deemed necessary to point out the corporate acquittals even though that information was contained in the same court documents that contained convictions. Additionally the new material was added in such a was that it's not clear that it is covered by the existing citations. Another example of inserting new text in front of an old reference was the following line:

It also was no accident that many of the investors in the public utilities were also the backers of the new City lines

It's not clear that the existing references support that statement. 98.87.33.235 (talk) --98.87.33.235 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Was Detroit actually one of the 45?

Recent edits to Transportation in metropolitan Detroit have removed references to any involvement by NCL in the Detroit streetcar system. We have now gathered some reasonably strong evidence on Talk:Transportation in metropolitan Detroit that there was indeed no direct involvement. We note that the Supreme Court ruling mentions 'four cities in Michigan' - to quote The largest concentrations of smaller systems are in Illinois, with eleven cities; California with nine (excluding Los Angeles); and Michigan with four. An independent discussion forum which also expressed doubt in this artice and has proposed that the four places in Michigan were ' Jackson (1936-1964), Kalamazoo (1936-1967), Lansing (1936-1937) and Saginaw (1936-1962).'[2]. Can anyone help resolve this one and get a more authoritative source for the 45 cities? PeterEastern (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done quite a lot of research on this have concluded that there is no solid evidence that Detroit was one of the 45 and it would have probably have been impossible given that the system was in public ownership anyway. I think it is an urban myth. That is not to say that motor interests in the area didn't 'encourage' the dismantlement of the system, but is harder to prove for inclusion and was not the claim made in this article. I have created an 'Operating areas and companies' section in the NCL article with a working list of places where they did control or buy transit operators. PeterEastern (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010 Edits

There seems to be quite a few IP's that seem to be successfully rewording the entire article bit by bit to wording that favors GM. I think it might benefit the article to semi-protect it. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, I suggest we spend some more time reworking this article into a clearer and more robust structure which is better supported by references and provides space for both sides of view. We can then consider protecting it. Personally I consider that much of the background should actually be in a later 'rebuttal' section - the description of the scandal should come first. I see no justification for a huge section titles 'Los Angeles', that should be the place for the main claims covering all places. The quotes in the LA section are far to long and belong as quotes in the references themselves. I don't see any major evidence of an 'inside job on this article. I do hope you are not suggesting that I am a GM employee, that would be a first! I have indeed visited Detroit recently, but used a bicycle the entire time and have never been in a car factory in my life. I did clean up the background section to make it more coherent which might seem to be supporting the 'GM' position. I will be doing more work on the article in the next week which should help. PeterEastern (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have now juggled the content into a clearer structure as mentioned above. However... the 'scandal' section is actually very thin. I suggest that it should include details of the main books and films that cover this issue (listing in Further Reading and External Links) and outlines the essence of their claims. The 'Alternative explanations' section probably has enough in it already. It could also be sharped up but currently already in my opinion it currently unbalances the article so the focus should probably be on filling out the 'scandal' section. PeterEastern (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Bahaha, i love how the "Alternative explanations" section is 4-5 times the size of the scandal section. This is an article about the scandal, not an article about the alternative explanations. This article has become a joke. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read my comment above then you will see that I agree with you. So far I have not added any information about either the 'scandal' or the 'alternative explanations' I have just assembled the existing content into the appropriate sections (ie I have moved all the rebuttals into the 'alternative' sections). Please do add well referenced substance to the scandal section - I will do some tomorrow something but don't have any more time today. PeterEastern (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing your work. I was criticizing the relentless and detrimental work the IP's have done to destroy this articles integrity over the past several months. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

UrbanNerd, I do not work for GM. I do not think demanding unbiased information and presentation of that information is detrimental to the article. I did not write the alternative explanations section but I think it's good to have it. Wiki should not give wings to conspiracy theories without offering documented alternative theories. Furthermore, it is incorrect to cite GM as though they were the primary instigator. The earlier quoted sections suggest that it was the rail companies that sought out money in exchange for exclusive agreements with the suppliers, not the other way around. Presenting the case as GM and the others does not present an unbiased account of the court documents nor the other historical records. I think this rewrite has done an admirable job of cleaning up the article which had suffered from numerous edits both by people who wanted the article to be more factual and those who wanted to add a strong bias in one direction or another. --98.87.122.35 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the Great American streetcar scandal. Not the alternative explanations of the streetcar system dismantling. If you want to start an article on that topic be my guest. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again let us keep the rhetoric and inflammatory titles down. Unless you have proof that any of the IP addresses are from GM or GM employees do not say otherwise. I don't live anywhere near GM and I have never worked in the auto industry. As part of a discussion of the scandal we can discuss both what is alleged to have occurred as well as alternative, documented theories. The article does that. We should also make sure that the information presented accurately reflects the cited documents. For instance if we are going to claim companies were convicted we need to have references. If those references also say the companies were acquitted of some of the charges that information should also be presented. If multiple defendants are listed in the legal documents we should list all of them unless their inclusion is not related to the article. Forgive me if I am having trouble understanding why you wish to decrease the accuracy of the article and instead concentrate on making sure one company is presented as a "bad guy". --98.87.122.35 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

all of your "edits" are to somehow discredit the theory and prove the innocence of the companies involved. This is a story about a conspiracy theory ! Perhaps you should have a basic understanding of what a conspiracy theory is before editing. I am going to request that this article be semi protected so that disruptive IP's cannot edit. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to get into a tit for tat accusation war with you. You have not shown that my edits are disruptive, only that you don't like that I would like to see the article present it's material in an objective fashion. Perhaps you can show where I am degrading the article. Earlier you reverted a number of my edits and insisted I include references. The references were already included in the article and all that was necessary was to read their contents. How was that incorrect to present the full scope of the information in the referenced articles? Claiming my IP address is from GM or that I am disruptive is a red herring. --98.87.122.35 (talk)

Firstly, since you are talking as 'I' in the above can I suggest that you register with Wikipedia with your own user-name so you can then ensure that all your edits are attributed to yourself and that no one else who happens to use the same IP address gets muddled with you? Secondly, can I welcome you to Wikipedia and lets build a great article together! PeterEastern (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much sniping

Hello. I am interested in this subject, having ridden a Pacific Electric streetcar when young. I notice an edit war going on, this time over the order in which defendants should be listed in the article. I am really chagrined at this. It would be nice if the combatants could have a cuppa and call a truce. Anyway, why not put the defendants in alphabetical order? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• There seem to be three different suggestions for the correct order of the defendants

1. The order on the official inditement
2. Alpabetical order
3. Some other order, possibly their perceived significance in the 'scandal'.

Personally I recommend '1', however I am going to concentrate on building up the scandal section. Alphabetical would be best in my view if the list was longer and there weren't any other source. The third version will lead to permanent squabbles. Any other views? Someone recently pointed out that the The Beatles article has had over 17,000 edits relating to the capitalisation of the first 't' in 'The Beatles' and the order in which the four singers are listed.[3] I suggest that we see if we not break that record!

-- PeterEastern (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Do we need semi-protect? Semi-protect is surely meant to avoid random silly edits to famous pages for many different directions - is that what we have? Fyi, I aim to do a lot of work on the article in the next week and will ensure that it is all well referenced and secure. I have already started reading the external links articles and there is plenty of material to build up the Scandal section, very little of which has been integrated yet. I have already split the article so that there will be no excuse to sneak rebuttals into the Scandal section unless there is a very good reference and it fits. I am happy to be on the 'vandalism watch' team going forward and will strongly encourage regular contributors to sign up properly and become part of the community and not use IP addresses - to my mind anonymous IP addresses are not intended to be used except for the occasions edits. PeterEastern (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't been using my log in because I had to find the lost password. I wouldn't have bothered except that I was accused of acting on behalf of GM. I wanted to assume my edits were reasonable enough to not need to bother finding my old account information. From now on I will use this account for major edits. --Springee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

I must say PeterEastern has been a machine when it comes to the edits and rewrites. I think the work has been well done. I'm satisfied that it adequately describes the alleged conspiracy while maintaining neutrality with respect to the companies involved. It presents both the allegations as well as the alternative historical views that I would say are the "truth". The facts are presented in a fashion that is as neutral as possible and does not overly condemn any one participant. I hope this rewrite is also acceptable to UrbanNerd.--Springee (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks. It has been an epic week, starting in gangster Chicago in the 1920s figuring out what John Hertz was up to and with whom, about the taxi wars and the killings and his bus and taxicab manufacturing business etc. He was quite a guy! Then over to New York to work on all the bankruptcies and take-overs of the 1920-1945 period and finally over to the west coast to find out about the red cars, yellow cars and key systems etc. I was thinking that I was nearly done and was just going to do a final review of this article to draw in an overview and then treat it as 'job done'. I have tried to err on the side of 'over-referencing' the articles to reduce the chance of any of the facts being challenged. I do hope that people will now add more and more detail to these various related articles because there is still a lot more to uncover, but I think the structure is sound now. I will keep the articles I have worked on in my watch list for a while. Now.. I think I should get back to the rest of my life! PeterEastern (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Playing safe with the list of cities in the lead

I came to this article because of an erroneous claim in the lead that Detroit's system was involved. It wasn't. There is a claim on a university website, but that looks like a Wikipedia echo.[4] I then spent a lot of time researching this whole subject and have added content to the key articles and a summary to this article.

I removed Cleveland from the lead because I couldn't find a good reference. Someone popped it back. I have investigated further and found that there is an article in Wikipedia for the Cleveland Streetcar system which makes some weak claims with no good references. I think it is clear that it was all pretty smelly, but that in itself isn't enough. Given that I can't find good sources I have taken it out again until someone does.

Interestingly I then followed up Salt Lake City this evening which was in the lead. It is mentioned in the court papers[5], however I then found this claim on another site "The so-called "streetcar conspiracy" does not apply to Salt Lake City's streetcar system. National City Lines' purchase of Salt Lake City's transit system in 1944 came at a time when there was only a single route remaining. And its abandonment had been approved in May 1941, three years before."[6]. Clearly something isn't right and I think it is possible that the court missed that fact that it was already on its knees, or.... was GM involved earlier and the website is ill-informed. We don't know and given the level of misinformation on this subject I suggest we play safe and leave Salt Lake City out of the lead.

I then looked for sources for St Loius which is also mentioned in the court papers and didn't find much. I then trimmed the list in the lead down to the places with excellent content and sources.

We are dealing with a murky subject where facts have been short for decades and allegations have been many. We certainly can't believe lists; we can't believe lists in books, newspapers, university websites or possibly even courts if they just reel off cities with no verifiable details which we can match to other sources.

So.. in order to play safe, I suggest we keep a strong grip on the lead and additions generally. For a city to get into the lead there should be:

1. A good well supported and detailed description of a major involvement documented in an appropriate Wikipedia article.
2. The relevant Wikipedia article should be placed in the 'Affected transit lines' list in this article with a single strong reference showing involvement.
3. Then.. only then if it is also significant through size, fame or particularly impressive skulduggery will it get into the lead.
4. If people challenge this rule and say that they 'know' that a city was involved we press them to write it up and prove it as this process requires, and that way we get more background to the story. If they are not confident about writing the article then they should can drop the main evidence on this talk page for someone else to work up, but it has to be done properly.

Any thoughts? Am I being to harsh?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations

Peter, Springee here, I can't find my password. Anyway, I would like to request a bit of a change to the opening section. I think the opening section is too damning of the companies in question. The last paragraph is troubling me. It says "Today it is agreed that GM and others were indeed heavily involved...". I don't know that it is agreed by scholars of the subject. Second I don't like that it singles out just GM as it was a consortium of companies and according to the legal accounts it was the transit lines that went to the companies, not the companies that went after the transit lines. This certainly suggests that it wasn't an "ambitious" plan. It's also not clear how secretive it was. Finally, it doesn't appear their was ever plan was ever to buy healthy lines and convert them to buses. It appears that only weaker lines were converted. Given the number of lines that converted to buses without aid of the conspirators it appears they saw this as an opportunity to secure sales that otherwise might have gone to other bus, tire, oil etc companies. In other words it isn't clear that the conspirators caused the switch vs made sure they were the ones that benefited from the switch.

As such I believe the opening section should avoid words or phrases that make it sound like the allegations were true but simply unproven in court. It's possible the companies got off for lack of evidence but it's also quite possible the companies were found innocent of the major conspiracy charge because they really were innocent of wrong doing and simply were securing sales of buses which were going to happen anyway.

Please let me know your thoughts. In a few days I would like to edit the opening paragraphs to address the issue.--129.59.184.22 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rereading it now I do agree with you. I have made some adjustments to the lead to address some of your issues. Do you think that it is better now? I think the final quote by author is justified as it does show the different sides and also the emotion but am happy for your further suggestions. In relation to singling out GM I would suggest that the rest of the article does show them as being the main actor and indeed they are mentioned by name in one the variants of the title. Where it the evidence that the other companies were involved beyond their investment in NCL and PCL etc? PeterEastern (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One other point. In the "other contributing factors" section it says that the conspirators were not solely responsible for the demise of the electric streetcar in the US. I think we need to be careful about how we define responsible. If the companies bought a line that was going to convert anyway and say National does the conversion that doesn't mean National was responsible. The line would have converted anyway. National simply was the one who did the converting. National likely bought the line because it would be converted. As an example, investment companies often target companies that are under performing then restructure them and layoff workers. Investment companies aren't going to target healthy companies. Unhealthy companies are likely to have to layoff workers even if they aren't purchased by an investment company. Thus it's unfair to say investment companies just buy companies to fire people since those layoffs were likely to occur anyway. It's also unfair to say that Investment companies force change on companies. Those were weak companies and with or without the investment influences they would have changed. --129.59.184.22 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have toned down the wording and removed the suggestion of responsibility. PeterEastern (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hyperlinked adjective

I am not a wikipedia expert but the hyperlinking of the adjective "poor" in the section "Legacy" seems to me excessive. Maybe someone more expert could take a look. Masonmilan (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - I have now reworked the section to tighten it up, review hyperlinks and integrate it into the '1970s to present' section. PeterEastern (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This should be locked. I know this actually happened, my great-grandmother told me about it.

While reading this article and the discussion forums, we need to lock this page because of the POV issues and vandalism by CATO lackies. It doesn't reflect what actually happened because the LA transit system was bought out by General Motors. Henry Ford was also an essential player which is completely ignored in this article. this needs to be completely re-written with scholarly sources or first-hand accounts. Try the following to start with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Wlo0Pv344 This needs to be completely fixed, it is far too important to be allowed to stay up here like this. This should be locked because of the vandalism, and I will do it if no one has objections over the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stidmatt (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and request semi-protection if you think it is warranted, you can file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

Regarding sources...

• If you want to use YouTube as a reference, only in very rare cases is it considered a reliable source for WIkipedia's purposes and
• first-hand accounts are only permissible if they appear in verifiable published sources. Utilizing personal/unpublished interviews would constitute original research and that is antithetical to WIkipedia's guidelines and established practices.

I would also suggest in the future that you stick to evaluating the edit and that you refrain from charcterizing other editors as 'lackies'.

-- Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What is you motivation to semi-protect it? To stop repeated vanandalism of a good article, or to restrict access to the article so you can 'correct' it and remove 'bias'. The first reason doesn't really seem to be necessary as we only get very limited vandalism and can deal with it, the second won't work because many 'lackies' (as you call them) will still be able to edit the article. Regarding your claims that Henry Ford was much more involved than the article states, please find suitable reliable references and then make a suitable change. My research found GM to be much more involved with few references to Ford. Your youtube piece does not appear to be very useful and pulls a lot on emotion with images of exhaust fumes, smoke-stack emissions and nuclear bombs rather than relying on verifiable facts; it contains many claims of a general nature, but few that could add to the article. Your Great-grandmother may well have been right, but we need first rate references for this emotive article and can't rely on 2nd hand word-of-mouth. Did she play a key role in the events was was she just passing on what she had read? Most of what has been written on this subject is biased which is why this article is well referenced to primary material where this is available. PeterEastern (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Article name

For a long time this article has been titled "Great American streetcar scandal". Today, it was moved to "Decline of streetcars in the United States" with the edit summary: The previous title is a hyperbolic, fantastical, inherently POV name invented by a wikipedia editor and attested nowhere else.

Other redirects, which may reflect previous names or merged content, include:

• General Motors streetcar conspiracy
• Great American streetcar conspiracy
• Great American streetcar scandal
• National City Lines conspiracy
• United States v. National City Lines, Inc.

Glancing at the references, I see two sources with similar names:

• The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit"
• Paving the Way for Buses – The Great GM Streetcar Conspiracy"

It seems that there is no one name for this topic which is in common use. But if we can find the most common then perhaps that should be the name. I doubt the current name will show up in any searches, though. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of the two sources you mention, the first is someone's personal blog, and the second is a marginal publication whose "editorial goal is to advocate a comprehensive regional ferry service specifically and celebrate waterfront life, work and play generally." The author of the article has no identifying credentials that would establish him as a credible source. Of the many reliable sources cited, none of them use that sort of language to which you refer, with the sole exception of the 30-year-old Harpers article. The title of the article must be NPOV and also refer to a notable subject. No one was ever convicted of any conspiracy, other than the conspiracy to monopolize the sale of buses, so titling an article after a purported conspiracy attested to only by unreliable sources won't work. It will either have to be about the case in question specifically, or the phenomenon of the decline of streetcars in the US in general.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Earlier someone noted that there are really two subjects here -- the court case relating to the National City Lines, and the general issues causing the decline of their use. Maybe we should have a general decline article that mentions the conspiracy and the court case along with the other (more innocuous?) causes of the streetcar decline, and a separate, more specific court case article that conforms to the legal naming conventions on WP. Personally I don't really mind the new name for the general article, as it seems pretty NPOV, even if it's not the most common name (per WP: POVTITLE). With a proper redirect, the common name problem isn't really as much of a problem in searches. poroubalous (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we could also have two articles about both of those things. Perhaps that is the best solution.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If someone wishes to write an article on the 'decline of streetcars in the USA (1940s to 1970s)' then be my guest, however I see no justification for changing the name of this article without any discussion. I also find the explanation for the move that the old title was "hyperbolic, fantastical, inherently POV name invented by a wikipedia editor and attested nowhere else" unconvincing. A quick search on Google for the phrase "Great American Streetcar Scandal"] (in quotes) returns 55,000 results - hardly evidence that the title is inappropriate. This article is viewed about 100K times a year with its old title which is impressive and also an indication that it was a good tile. In addition the article was written to the title - ie it was written to covered the scandal, not the more general subject of the decline of the streetcars. Given the number of people who refer to this article every day I am going to attempt to revert the move and change to the lead while we discuss the issue. PeterEastern (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now restored the original title and lead and created a section below where a move can be discussed if anyone wishes to present an argument for such a move. See WP:MOVE for guidance on how to go about proposing a move that may be considered controversial (which I certainly consider this one to be). PeterEastern (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding on a bit more detail to the above discussion here is some further justification for the previous and longstanding title and content. Firstly, the article is not about the court case, it is about the wider claims make that the indited companies were responsible for the destruction of streetcars in US cities and that without their illegal actions that the USA would still have streetcars in its cities. The conclusion seems to be that their actions certainly didn't help but that their were also other important reasons for the decline. Regarding the claim that some of the sources are personal blogs, I would point out that the sources are used as a source for a document written by a Bradford Snell, an anti-trust lawyer who gave evidence to the USA inquiry into the scandal in the 1970s, the second is used as a source for an in-depth article rebuttal to that that same evidence. As such both of these are highly relevant to the article. Finally, here are the number of Google search results for each of the redirects mentioned above.

• Great American streetcar scandal 55,000
• General Motors streetcar conspiracy 13,800
• Great American streetcar conspiracy 10,000
• National City Lines conspiracy 10,000
• United States v. National City Lines, Inc. 10,000 results

-- PeterEastern (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the first few dozen entries of your 55,000, it's immediately obvious that just about all of it is junk results--mirrors, forum comments, things directly traceable to this article. I would like to see some reliable sources that use this name. The allegations of one person don't make for a notable subject deserving of a wikipedia article, particularly when they have long since been discredited by a number of more reliable sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you to make your case for a move in the following section. Personally I would suggest that all the activity on forums etc is excellent evidence that the article is notable and does have a good title (regardless of whether is it influenced by Wikipedia). One should also be aware that Wikipedia has only existed for 10 years and that anything written before that time cannot have been influenced by Wikipedia. You may also wish to explain why Edwin J. Quinby's warning that there was a scandal in 1946 can be ignored even if he was incorrect. Similarly, you may wish to explain why the Senate inquiry and convictions are not justification for an article on the subject. PeterEastern (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Doing a basic Google search is worthless if you don't filter out the mirror sites. Just because they refer to the wikipedia article doesn't make it an suitably encyclopedic name. I'm seeing not a single reliable source that uses this name, and you haven't produce one. Just because someone named Edwin J. Quinby of no particular relevant standing wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper in 1946 does not make for a notable article. It certainly doesn't justify the title of the article. Neither does the senate inquiry. Again, as I've already states, no one was ever convicted of any conspiracy, other than the conspiracy to monopolize the sale of buses, so titling an article after a purported conspiracy attested to only by unreliable sources won't work. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that none of the references and sources in this article satisfy you and I am not now convinced that any evidence will be sufficient for you to change your mind. Can I again ask you to make continue this discussion in the section below in the proposed moved if that is what you still wish. I am not going to engage with you on specific points unless you are able to do that. I have also just removed the 'notability' banner that you added to the article today and have created a section below where we can discuss the case for such a banner if you still feel it is justified. PeterEastern (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable references or sources in this article that use the name "Great American Streetcar Scandal." You have not yet produced one! As for where the discussion takes place, this section or below it makes no difference. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you POV, however you do seem to be in a minority of one in that regard. I have explained my reasoning for the name already and why 55,000 Google results are good enough even if some are recycled Wikipedia. You have also not proposed any other name you would consider suitable other than 'decline of streetcars in the USA' which as we have pointed out has a very different scope and would require a major rewrite of the article. I also note that you are still responding in this section even though I have twice asked you to use the section below to put your case. It may or may not 'make a difference' where you respond, but if I was in your shoes then I would have responded to the request and used the section below. I also notice that you are continuing to mis-indent your responses even though I have fixed them for you in the past. Possibly that doesn't matter very much either but it all gives an impression of someone who is in a hurry to come to a verdict and who isn't putting in the care and effort that the subject deserves. (I am adjusting the indentation of your last post with this one). PeterEastern (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with varying the indentation, and you are not me, so where I choose to write my responses is my business. I already suggested that we have one article entitled "Decline of streetcars in the United States" and another article about the specifics of the city lines case, which could very well be called simply "United States v. National City Lines, Inc." If those 55,000 results had any value it should have been quite easy for you to produce a single reliable source by now. I am requesting comment on the No original research Noticeboard.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that this is your first contribution to this article? If so, then you seem to be taking a very confrontational approach. Indentation etiquette is there to assist other people in following the conversation and is easy to achieve, not following it sends a very poor message. I do agree however that there is a remarkable amount of recycled Wikipedia turning up in print these days, but most of the key references in this article are far earlier than that. PeterEastern (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the article in extremely well referenced and supported, however.. here are a few references since you insist, all taken from this Google books search of publications from prior to the year 2000, and therefore all prior to Wikipedia. Do you not agree that these rather undermines your case?:

• Mother Jones Magazine - Nov 1978 - Page 18 Vol. 3, No. 9 - 60 pages - Magazine He presented a strong, well-documented case that GM engaged in exceedingly questionable tactics to force trolley companies to eliminate trolleys and to buy GM diesel buses. In many instances, GM bought out the streetcar lines ...
• The urban scene: myths and realities Joe R. Feagin - 1979 - 305 pages Furthermore, GM's conversion of much of this country's streetcar and interurban trackage to bus routes has precluded the survival of domestic streetcar builders and deterred entry by foreign railcar manufacturers. ...
• The American political science review: Volume 81, Part 2 American Political Science Association - 1987 - The streetcar conspiracy thesis has been around for a long time, fueled by the Department of Justice's successful antitrust prosecution in the 1940s of GM in the National City Lines case. General Motors established National City Lines ...
• Los Angeles and the Automobile: The Making of the Modern City. Scott L. Bottles - 1991 - 315 pages - Bradford Snell later argued that General Motors' actions ruined a healthy streetcar industry. In fact, General Motors, through NCL, provided the capital necessary to improve local transit companies. Trolley networks had been trying to ..
• The geography of nowhere: the rise and decline of America's.. James Howard Kunstler - 1994 - 303 pages - In 1925, with the acquisition of the Yellow Coach company, the General Motors Corporation undertook a systematic campaign to put streetcar lines out of business all over America. General Motors erected a byzantine network of ...
• Big Town Big Time Jay Maeder, The New York Daily News - 1998 - 198 pages General Motors and like-minded collaborators in tires and oil were the primary force behind the wholesale abandonment of trolley systems nationwide. GM, Firestone and Phillips Petroleum, among others, formed National City Lines, ...
• Asphalt nation: how the automobile took over America - Page 213 Jane Holtz Kay - 1998 - 418 pages - In 1932, General Motors, the manufacturer of buses and owner of the largest share of Greyhound, formed a consortium of tire, oil, and highway men to buy and shut down America's streetcar systems. Attacking the trolley mile by mile,
• Unsettling Cities: Movement/Settlement. John Allen, Doreen Massey, Michael Pryke - 1999 - 354 pages - From the 1920s and starting in New York, General Motors targeted trolley-bus companies with a view to replacing them, ... City by city, it took the hidden hand of General Motors to replace streetcars with Yellow Coach buses.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as the indentation is varied, which it has been, it is perfectly clear whose comments belong to whom. I have been editing wikipedia extensively for a number of years, and have contributed to this article before, as a matter of fact. My earlier comments are clearly apparent above. The references you provide above do not undermine my case at all. I asked you to show me one instance of a reliable source using the phrase "Great American Streetcar Scandal." Above, you have provided ZERO reliable sources that do that. Not a single one of them uses the phrase "Great American Streetcar scandal." No one is disputing that there is an alleged conspiracy, based primarily on Snell's testimony. No one is disputing that GM bought up streetcar lines and replaced them with buses. That is all your results show. There is NO evidence that this is widely accepted by any authorities as a "Great American Scandal" or a "Great Conspiracy." None of the sources you provide even uses the word "scandal," and the single one that uses the word "conspiracy" goes on to describe the evidence for that conspiracy as "flawed and unconvincing." In fact, all of the reliable sources cited in the article and that I have ever seen insist that GM's actions, aside from the monopolization of bus sales subsequent to the conversion in question, were legal and a prudent business decision made possible by the fact the streetcar industry was in a death spiral anyway. So titling this article "Great American Streetcar Scandal" is clearly a hopelessly POV proposition.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that the article makes it abundantly clear that GM and the other companies that were convicted were largely taking advantage of, and to a limited extent assisting in a process that was already underway and inevitable. It would however be wrong to not suggest that there were allegations that GM were more responsible for the demise of streetcars. PeterEastern (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I never disputed that there were allegations, and that it is fine for the allegations to be mentioned in the article. What I have stated over and over again, and what you refuse to acknowledge again and again, is that allegations are not proof of anything. Just because there was an alleged conspiracy by GM to destroy the streetcar industry, does not mean there actually was one. Therefore, titling the article "Great American streetcar scandal" endorses the idea that the conspiracy really happened, and that it was a "scandal" (a word that is used in ZERO sources). That is completely inappropriate and hopelessly POV.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Allegations which are vindicated by a court decision are not merely allegations. There were allegations of a conspiracy, and a judge agreed with the allegations and decided in their favor. That pretty much means that there was a conspiracy. — goethean ॐ 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The allegations were not vindicated. The court decision was about whether or not GM conspired to monopolize bus sales after the streetcars were gone, not whether GM conspired to destroy the streetcar industry.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

So far you (Sylvain1972) have:

• Moved the article to 'Decline of streetcars in the United States' without discussion. I reverted that because that is not what the article is about and have given my reasons below.
• Disputed the article on ground of notability even though you subsequently have said "No one is disputing that there is an alleged conspiracy, based primarily on Snell's testimony. No one is disputing that GM bought up streetcar lines and replaced them with buses."
• Reported it on the 'no original research' notice board but got no support for you proposition. To quote the final response: "The StreetCar Conspiracy: How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit is cited in the bibliography, not via inline refs. The work was published by the New Electric Railway Journal. Here are three scholarly papers that cite it. Here's another, a paper cited in turn by others. Here's another, one in which Snell is quoted saying that he thinks that in 1922 GM decided specifically to kill the streetcars. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)"
• Failed to get any support from other contributors to the article on this talk page.

Can I suggest that we now consider this discussion closed? -- PeterEastern (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Contested move

I have reverted the article to its original title. If anyone considers that a move is appropriate then can they please make their case here and place a {{movenotice}} above the article lead and give time for a debate to take place - I suggest that at least 4-5 days should be allowed to give time for people to contribute to the discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, you did the right thing. DanTD (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• The article should not be moved without the appropriate discussion and procedures for moving an article are dealt with. Calicocat (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• This is the best title. Without the proper sources the other titles may not have enough evidence to support them. AcuteAccusation (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• I note that the title of this article has remained unchanged since 2003 when it was created. I also note that there was a discussion in 2005 on this talk page (in the 'Renaming this article' section) about whether this was a scandal, a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory - no suggestion that the article title was completely wrong though. We currently appear to have one person who thinks the article is incorrectly titled. If anyone else concurs with this view then please make your point here. PeterEastern (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why was this article moved/retitled? As it was several companies, not just GM, why should the conspiracy be named after GM vs say Standard Oil? --98.87.123.68 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Because it is widely acknowledged that GM was the conspiracy leader in terms of money and effort. Mack Truck and GM both put in $500,000 to become the top shareholders, but Mack did not do so much to direct the effort. The other companies were invested at lower levels. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Acknowledged by whom? Do we have a link to this? I know it's popular to blame GM for many things but didn anyone really show they were more guilty than the rest or that this should be called the "GM" what ever vs naming all or none? What did Snell call it?--173.108.74.67 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• The 'requested move' section below has a more detailed discussion about whether it was a conspiracy and whether it is appropriate to name GM in the title. I will not repeat the arguments here. PeterEastern (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Contested notability banner

A notability banner was placed on this article today following a contested earlier move. I have removed this banner as it doesn't appear to be justified. Please discuss here before reinstating it. PeterEastern (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Any "hit and run" banner or notices should be removed at once as it is often a form of vandalism. Calicocat (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have left a comment 'Contested move and notability banner for Great American streetcar scandal' on User:Sylvain1972's talk page saying that the general view here was that his interventions in this article were possibly slightly hot-headed and unhelpful. PeterEastern (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. From the move history, this looks like the name this article started with. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Great American streetcar scandal → General Motors streetcar conspiracy

The original name of the article was General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy (all caps), then corrected to lower case "General Motors streetcar conspiracy" on May 27, 2004. It was moved on January 3, 2007 to Great American streetcar scandal; a move performed unilaterally by User:Kikodawgzz who, without discussion, also changed most instances of conspiracy to scandal. The word 'scandal' had not been part of the article until that point. I think the article should be moved back to General Motors streetcar conspiracy.

There certainly was a GM conspiracy, GM the main conspirator along with Firestone, Standard Oil and National City Lines, proved by a federal grand jury who fined GM $5000 for criminal conspiracy. The conspiracy was actual, not theoretical. The word "scandal" is a viewpoint not held by all, especially by objective historians, so per WP:NPOV that word should not be in the article title. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

You are actually proposing two changes: 1) From 'Scandal' to 'Conspiracy'. Conspiracy is harsher than scandal and I feel it is not justified. I would prefer to leave the title alone but would go along with the change if it got wide support. 2) A change from 'Great American' to 'General Motors'. I would oppose that move because it was not just General Motors involved, there were other companies, and in my view it would introduce too much POV into the title. When you put both changes together you are making it much harsher and personal to GM in a way that I don't think is appropriate. Please leave it for at least 7 days to get wider comments. PeterEastern (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should absolutely allow the requested move to gain comments for seven days.

I am aware that the name change has two elements.

GM was the main conspirator, providing the most support for the front company "National City Lines", and they got fined $5000 for criminal conspiracy. It is harsh but not personal unless a corporation is a person. The harshness is just, coming as it does from a federal grand jury. The article explains quite well how the conspiracy was only one of a number of factors working against the streecar lines.

-- Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "American streetcar conspiracy"? Avoids GM, since there were other conspirators, but goes from scandal to conspiracy, which is justified. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should compromise the title - Google find 155,000 references on the web for the current title of 'Great American Streetcar Scandal' (in quotes) today - the number seems to vary from day to day. Some of these may indeed be echos of Wikipedia, but that is not a complete explanation. Google finds only 1,000 reference to the shorter 'American Streetcar Scandal'. (using the search term "american streetcar scandal" -"great American streetcar scandal"). Binkserernet is actually only suggesting that of the three titles given in the lead sentence that we switch from one to the other as the primary title. Revisiting his suggestion I do note that many of the references refer to GM by name and call it a conspiracy. PeterEastern (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not consider Google searches but rather reliable sources. Or look for archived web searches prior to January 2007 if that is possible. I know on Google Books one can perform an advanced search restricted to a date range, and doing so one finds no result at all for "Great American Streetcar Scandal" before 2007. Same for "Great American Streetcar controversy", "American streetcar controversy", and "General Motors streetcar controversy". There is a 1999 article by Al Mankoff called Revisiting the American streetcar scandal published by Trolley Treasures and by the New Jersey Transit Authority in their journal In Transition. Mankoff is cited by scholar Martin Calkins as well as author Jane Jacobs in 2004's Dark Age Ahead; Jacob says on page 186 that she draws heavily from Mankoff. Jacobs also calls the topic the "General Motors campaign". There is a search result from 1985 for "National City Lines controversy" and another result from 1999 saying "General Motors controversy". Some food for thought. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I do hear where you are coming from now and you are certainly digging up good evidence to support your position. One question for you. The article currently says The corporations involved were fined only $5000., however the quote in the reference says The court imposed a sanction of $5,000 on GM. In addition, the jury convicted H.C. Grossman, who was then treasurer of GM ... The court fined Grossman the magnanimous sum of $1. Was anyone else fined? What about Firestone and Mack Trucks? If it was only GM then that helps your proposal considerably. It is worth checking facts elsewhere if possible however because Snell has proven to not be 100% accurate in his claims. PeterEastern (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a single corporate fine of $5,000. Various individuals were fined a dollar each. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have now corrected the text of the article to that effect. PeterEastern (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I now support the change following the above discussion (contrary to my original position which was mildly opposed). This is because there does indeed seem to be clear evidence that there was a conspiracy and that GM were convicted and fined for conspiracy. PeterEastern (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the controversial nature of this article, and the strong feelings it has brought up and continues to bring up can I suggest that we indicate where we are coming from and what particular knowledge we bring. From my side, I am based in the UK, run a sustainable transport business and have contributed widely to transport related articles on Wikipedia over the past few years. More details on my user page. I am still keen to hear the views of anyone who would oppose the move. PeterEastern (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a rider of transit, not an operator. I live in Oakland, one of the affected cities, and I am an amateur historian but not so involved with local rail as would be a rail fan.

This story, the controversy/conspiracy/scandal, must also include the doubting opinions of respected observers. For instance, California's official historian Kevin Starr dismisses the conspiracy as "folklore". I do not know the extent to which he has studied it, but there's no indication he studied it in depth. His dismissal is one parenthetical statement in two of his history books, both without a footnote on the subject.

People who study the issue in depth seem more sympathetic to the idea of conspiracy. California state manuscript librarian Michael Dolgushkin says he thinks National City Lines bought non-monopoly coaches in Los Angeles "probably to take the wind out of a resultant antitrust suit". I consider Bradford Snell the starting point of topic study. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. My interest in the subject started with a visit to Detroit last summer to understand how the city rose and was then almost destroyed by the car industry. I then did a load of work on the Transportation in metropolitan Detroit on my return which led on to this article, at first just wanting to establish if Detroit was involved in the 'conspiracy/scandal' or not. I then put in a huge amount of work into this article and loads of associated articles during Sept/Oct 10. One person commented above that "I must say PeterEastern has been a machine when it comes to the edits and rewrites. I think the work has been well done. I'm satisfied that it adequately describes the alleged conspiracy while maintaining neutrality with respect to the companies involved. It presents both the allegations as well as the alternative historical views that I would say are the "truth". The facts are presented in a fashion that is as neutral as possible and does not overly condemn any one participant". My desire to get to the truth was partly driven by the difficultly of doing so given that so much of what was going on was secret at the time with companies registering in Delaware etc, together with considerable misinformation and exageration and simlification subseqently to fit various political agendas. Wikipedia seemed to be be perfect platform to try to pull together the truth as far as it can be established in a form that people can easily access. PeterEastern (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! I have sat in on Oakland Heritage Alliance lectures at which this topic was discussed. Some still remember the issues as they were in the '30s and '40s. There were many reasons why the light rail operators were in dire straits, and if National City Lines had not bought so many of them they may well have folded. It is still true that Mack Truck and GM were the main stakeholders (at $500,000 each) in the conspiracy to finish off the urban light rail lines, with GM usually identified as the central culprit. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of academic sources that dismiss the conspiracy. The bottom line is, GM was convicted of conspiring to buy only GM buses for its own transportation companies. They were acquitted of the charge that most resembles the Snell's allegations -- conspiring to form a transportation monopoly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you identify the number of academic sources that dismiss the conspiracy? Could you also indicate what title would you recommend as you clearly don't like the current title. PeterEastern (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The first one that comes to mind is one you cited above. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 3 (Sep., 1987). The author, states the "'conversion for destruction' hypothesis is flawed and unconvincing" and concludes "Even if GM was trying to sabotage mass transit instead of monopolize bus supplier markets (which I doubt), a strong argument can be made that the other forces contributing to transit's troubles were so powerful that streetcar conversions hastened the industry's decline by only a few years at most." The author is Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez, Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy at Harvard University. Also worthy of inclusion is The Transformation of the Pacific Electric Railway: Bradford Snell, Roger Rabbit, and the Politics of Transportation in Los Angeles by Sy Adler. URBAN AFFAIRS QUARTERLY, Vol. 27 No.1, September 1991 51-86. Adler starts his article off by saying "Everything Bradford Snell wrote in American Ground Transport (U.S. Senate 1974, Part 4A) about transit in Los Angeles was wrong." He then spends 36 pages explaining why in detail. Adler is Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University. Adler's long article is a good source for further academic critiques - Bottles, S. 1987. Los Angeles and the automobile. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press., and Brodsly, D. 1981. LA. freeway. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. George Hilton, professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles whose work was one of Shell's major sources, testified before the same subcommittee five weeks after Shell did, saying that his work had been mischaracterized by Shell, stating that the resultant report "is a misrepresentation of what has happened which is likely to give rise to inappropriate policy" calling it "a disservice to the historical documentation of the Nation." (U.S. Senate 1974, Part 4,2215). I suggest making a more narrowly focused article called "U.S. vs. National City Lines" and folding the rest of the material into "Decline of Streetcars in the United States," as was suggested before.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation Needed for Toronto Point in the First Section

The claim about the cars going to Toronto in the last line of the first section is supported by the first bullet point in the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcar#North_America but seeing as that isn't cited either perhaps a citation needed note is needed there too? kev. (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)