Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Dispute"( split off for clarity.) Re "ok, I will take that as a a'no"

Anmccaff quotes PeterEastern from above:

I am not offering to get into long debates with you on content on talk again. We differ on what is fact and what is POV so I suggested this because I thought it would be an efficient way to boil down the issues on which we disagree a bit. It seems you are not up for that and also we don't even agree on the correct way to register a dispute (as per "An aside: I've reverted your deletion") ;) PeterEastern'

"PM>ok, so I will take that as a 'no' " No, you should take that as a request for information. Why do you now feel that a method you suggested to others is inappropriate for yourself? Next, discussing content on talk seems to be a large part of the purpose of talk. Do you disagree? Finally, no, we agree on the correct way to register a dispute. We disagreed on the best way to request advice on one. I followed the pages instruction quite literally, twice; only when I actually formally requested a dispute and shifted to talk at that point did I get something useful. That took a little poetic license with the instruction to "ask on the talk page" two pages away from it.

Please consider leaving this separate; I think your decision to merge the last two was ill advised in at least two ways. It's unwieldy as hell, and the emotive nature of part of it would be better separated from the rest.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead paras disected.

In this section Anmccaff is presenting a series of quotes from the Lead paragraph and then responding to them with his views to encourage discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner: The article's factual accuracy is disputed: Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (January 2015)

Well, we all agree here...although I've agreed a lot longer. Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner: The neutrality of this article is disputed: Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.) (January 2015)

Again, agreement, but I'd say it about the older stuff.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Electric Railway 'red car' streetcars stacked in an LA junkyard in 1956. Although folklore firmly connects the "Red Cars" with these allegations, the PE was never owned by the NCL firms.

The PE was only very peripherally involved with this until well after the NCL conspiracy, the equipment was often worn out past economical repair, and the SP wanted no more to do with it. How does this picture fit in, except as an emotional outpouring? Or is it an illustration of folklore?Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think of the picture as more of an asthetic choice, rather than an informative one. If someone can find a more suitable picture, great, but i dont see this as a big deal. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It ties in with the folklore, but not the facts, straight out of Roger Rabbit that is.Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but if you want to replace it, i think its on you to find a better photo. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, Whaddabout that New York City one that shows the parade for the new bus, with the last trolley slinking off behind it? (Kidding, kidding....mostly.)Anmccaff (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an auto marketing ploy as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events.

I see nothing tendentious here. Simple statement of what's involved in the story.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think we need the part that says "as well as to urban legends and other folklore inspired by these events." I'm not sure what that is adding to the lead. I would also change "auto marketing ploy" to something more descriptive. It wasn't so much as a marketing ploy as (it is claimed) a monopoly ploy. In other words, those who claim it was "part of a deliberate plot" (what we are saying in this sentence) believe the plot was to eliminate competition. Bonewah (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely. That is, there are some -Smerk most prominently- who don't buy the forced auto dependency, but do see this as a case suited for common, garden-variety trust-busting.

A very large part of the article -including the picture next to the lead - is about folklore. "Roger Rabbit" isn't a scholarly work. ("Nor is Taken for a Ride," but that's another story.) As I've mentioned, the article is trying to cover at least three different subjects, and falls between (amongst?) the stools in the process.Anmccaff (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, trust-busting or monopoly ploy, one way or the other its not marketing. As for the urban legends line, i think "allegations that.." is sufficient. We can expand upon the urban legend/folklore part in the body. Perhaps not outright calling it and urban legend in the lead will help resolve some of the disagreement. Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the line to what i think it should look like: "The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an attempt to monopolize surface transportation." Go ahead and revert it if you cant stand it, just wanted to put out there what i think it should be. Bonewah (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation - a Standard subsidiary — gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities. [3]Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland. NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that period, although electric traction was preserved or expanded in some locations. Other systems, such as San Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines. Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to subsidiary companies, but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit industry.

What do you see as biased here? It's what happened around the time of the court case.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some suggest this played a key role in the decline of public transit in cities across the United States; notably Edwin J. Quinby, who drew attention to the NCL's ownership structure in 1946, with mixed results, and later Bradford C. Snell, an assistant attorney for the United States Senate's anti-trust subcommittee, whose controversial 1974 testimony to a Senate inquiry brought the issue briefly to national awareness. Both Quinby and Snell argued that the destruction of streetcars systems was an integral part of a larger strategy to push the United States into automobile dependency. Most transit scholars say that economic, social and political factors such as unrealistic capitalization, fixed fares during inflation, changes in paving and automotive technology, the Great Depression, anti-trust action, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, labor unrest, market forces including the inability of declining industries to attract new capital, rapidly increasing traffic congestion, the Good Roads Movement, urban sprawl, taxation policies favoring private vehicle ownership, taxation of fixed infrastructure, franchise requirements to repair co-located property, wide diffusion of driving skills, and general enthusiasm for the automobile brought about changes in the transit system.[4]

If anything, I see this as heavily biased toward conspirophiles. The list of other factors could be expanded well beyond this, as could the list of real scholars, including some sympathetic to rail, who disagree.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the list of things after the line "Most transit scholars say" is overly long. We should cut it down to 3 or 4 big ones and list everything else in the body. Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that might be the point of it, pointing out that there are many, many other causes. This takes the conspiracy-minded approach as the starting point, which it ought to do only in describing the ULs. Perhaps it'd work better if it were shifted into a footnote, or separated into its own paragraph?Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yea, something other than the lead. Its not the content that bothers me, its the length. Bonewah (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, but then they ought, maybe, have the order flipped. There really is very little support for the theory that the alleged conspiracy to bring on auto dependency was real, never mind that it worked. (The conspiracy to capture the market among NCL subsidiaries was real, of course, but it's surprising how little effect that had for GM. NCL was almost all YMC before the requirements contracts, and after, but during the time GM supposedly had a lock, they only got three-quarters of NCL's business. That might be the -real- conspiracy here. Mack, of course, did even worse, and got out of it early.)Anmccaff (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Its important to remember that even when i popular theory has little scholarly support, the fact that its popular means it should be covered. Now, that should be balanced by what the scholarly views are, which is what we are trying to do in this sentence, i think. Again, my initial concern is that we are saying "most scholars say it was, this and this and this and this and this and this and this and all of these things, its just too many things. Pick a couple that are agreed to be the most important and push the rest to the body of the article. Bonewah (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent popular studies have questioned that the alleged conspirators had a significant impact on the decline of the streetcar system, rather, they were setting themselves up to take advantage of the decline as it occurred. Guy Span suggested that Snell and others fell into simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions[n 1] stating:

Although "Span" might now be a noted writer -Wiki has made him one - This seems fair enough, although I dislike the fact that it was obviously chosen for easy accessibility, not scholarly weight.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its important to highlight the fact that people disagree that this was a true conspiracy and to its scope, however i think this sentence is both non-neutral (calling Snell and others borderline paranoid) and unnecessarily reliant on Guy Span. I think Span is ok to cite, but quoting him in the lead is too much, imo. Bonewah (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

People do disagree, of course, but scholars don't so much at all. The idea that GM was the cause, or even a major cause, of the switch away from streetcars is less and less respectable the closer you narrow in on transit history. This is largely folklore, some of it now academic folklore.

"Span's" piece makes a good counterpoint to Louis Guibault, or Akos Szoboszlay, but I'd rather see them out instead. Period. I agree that it is strong for the lead paragraphs; if it belongs at all, it should be in the body, if some of the other tendentious stuff remains. Bob Post's "American Heritage" piece ["The Myth Behind the Streetcar Revival"] article comes to mind as something that would fit the Le(a)d(e) and the body better.Anmccaff (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another point: articles shouldn't be partisan, especially about genuinely debatable points, but sources may be. "Span" isn't the only author annoyed by the Roger Rabbit Myth, but speaking through a pen-name lets him display it in print a little more easily.Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."[n 2]

Here I disagree completely; GM was scared of being trust-busted, and backed off from finishing off competitors whenever possible...not that they didn't try to shove them into the smallest market niche they could. GM was also heavily involved in electric traction itself, counter to what the article suggests.Anmccaff (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In 2010 CBS's Mark Henricks reported:[5] There is no question that a GM-controlled entity called National City Lines did buy a number of municipal trolley car systems. And it's beyond doubt that, before too many years went by, those street car operations were closed down. It's also true that GM was convicted in a post-war trial of conspiring to monopolize the market for transportation equipment and supplies sold to local bus companies. What's not true is that the explanation for these events is a nefarious plot to trade private corporate profits for viable public transportation.

This, I think, makes my point about folktales.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The story as an urban legend has been studied extensively by Martha Bianco. It has been explored several times in print, film and other media, notably in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Taken for a Ride and The End of Suburbia.

What do you see wrong here?Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Only a small handful of U.S. cities have surviving effective rail-based urban transport systems based on streetcars or trams, including Newark, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Boston; others are re-introducing them. It is worth noting that, in many of these cases, the vehicles in question do not actually ride on the street. Boston had all of its downtown lines elevated, or buried, and the surviving lines at grade operate on their own right of way. San Francisco and Newark similarly use tunnels.

Every Western country that wasn't bankrupt did the same, many much earlier, in many cases. How is this relevant? It looks like post hoc, ergo propter. Either take it all out, or point out that it isn't meaningful out of context.Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This section is tough to read, do you mind if i reformat it so that we can easily create and follow conversation threads on each portion? Bonewah (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I'd have made the original text a different color, size and shape, if I could have, and I wish wiki has some equivalent of the old BBS relay systems, where each line was marked up by the author's initials. The clearer you could make it, the better.Anmccaff (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff: Responding to a respected contributor in this way does not seem very respectful or helpful to your cause. We all have the same tools available to us, which are simple, but adequate, and have to figure out how to use them to good effective. A bullet list may have been a good way to separate your issues above. As noted below however, I am not intending to get drawn into a longer discussion here, preferring to leave it to 3rd parties to guide us. PeterEastern (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I suspect Bonewah hasn't either.Anmccaff (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hows quote boxes look to everyone? Bonewah (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not bad at all. Thanks.22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (unsigned comment by Amnccaff)

Dispute registered

This dispute is now closed, and is archived here. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a request for dispute resolution on the noticeboard here.

I have Identified the key interested parties as myself. Anmccaff and Trackinfo and have described the issue from my perspective as requested. Not sure what happens next, however there is a space for Anmcaff and Trackinfo to respond briefly describing the issue from their perspectives, which would be a good next step. Personally I am going to avoid further discussion of issues raised on this talk page during this process.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The DRN has been opened for discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion. Even if you are not a named party, you are free to participate in the discussion so long as you remain civil, and restrict your comments to content issues and the inquiry at hand. Thanks. -- DRN volunteer Bejnar (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute closed and archived here. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-Reliable Source Blog

(Saw this page under discussion at DRN.) Whatever else happens at this article, it is not allowed or appropriate to use personal blogs as sourcing. Lovearth.net is painfully non-RS. It must be removed as must the material it supports. That material may be re-added if there are RS refs to support it. The Snell 1995 citations. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The RSN has determined that this source is both non-RS but also runs malware. I have taken the link out of the page but the material the ref supported still is in the article and should be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: don't get so excited. There is a difference between "uses Java" and "malware infested". I checked and the material you removed was the bibliographic entry for the 1995 Snell article. We shouldn't remove that because it's an important article and the bibliographic entry was cited by several footnotes. So I put it back, this time with a cite to the original journal article (a reliable source) and the name of a better convenience link – Coachbuilt.com, which is already cited in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeahbut (sic) were you able to actually check the piece in a (more) reliable source? And are the footnotes used to document Snell's claims, or to document objective fact?Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The footnotes are the 6 notes in the Footnotes section that say "Snell, Bradford (1995)". They require a bibliographic entry in the Citations section for Snell's 1995 article so that they will have somewhere to jump to when clicked. Most of them look like quotes from Snell's 1995 article. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am neither excited nor unexcited. An editor at RSN states that the site has malware. It really doesn't matter however because this source has been rejected at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. It can not be used no matter how important some may personally find it to be. Whether it has malware or not (and my computer just now warned me off but I don't know) doesn't matter because we won't be using this at wikipedia. Don't restore non-RS after RSN has weighed in against it. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

was there any discussion other than the one I was briefly involved in? That moved quick, maybe too quick.Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The non-RS blog has been replaced by Margin1522 (not restored). The new ref is "Coachbuilt" . Capitalismojo (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Coachbuilt seems to be the personal website of a bookstore owner and auto enthusiast. Is this reliable? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Coachbuilt isn't the very highest quality that web sites go, but it's a huge lot nearer the top than the bottom, and the article as it is now constructed -needs- to reference items which we realize are dubious, or disputed, or false. This is often the case when describing legends, myths, and rumors, which make up one of the article's subjects.Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source for Snell's claims is Snell's original 1995 article in TNERJ. Unfortunately it's not online. But it has been reprinted in many places around the Internet. We can use any of them as convenience links, and normally as long as the convenience site seems reliable we assume that it's a true copy. See WP:Citing sources#Convenience links. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

From convenience links: "When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright." I don't see how this doesn't violate copyright. Perhaps you can explain. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have an unfortunate feeling that when copyright issues, if any, are resolved, this cite will be charged with something else...like mopery with intent to snood, perhaps.Anmccaff (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: There are arguments for and against convenience links. See Wikipedia:Convenience link. If you are uncomfortable with the copyright issues we can simply delete the url= and via= parameters from the cite. That will leave us with a valid cite to the paper version of The New Electric Railway Journal. If readers want to check it, they can go the library. But even if we do delete the url, we shouldn't delete the material quoted from the original article. Under the WP:AGF policy, a quote is supposed to stay unless you go to the library yourself and verify that it did not appear in the original article. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit uncomortable with it but ...meh. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to see (other) lifeforms working on the Streetcar Article.

(Section copied from User_talk:Margin1522)

...but I have to question , and have reverted, your choice of source for Snell's testimony to the Senate, Margin1522. That's a press release, and I'm not sure who it's from. Could be the subcommittee staff, but it could as easily be from the Nader operation or Snell himself. The Hathitrust site is a transcript of what actually got said, and is from a rock-stable source, and links directly to the whole of Snell's submission, and the whole of various responses. I think that'd be much better to use on the main citation section.Anmccaff (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Oh, is it already cited? Sorry, I haven't looked all that closely at the article. I thought that since it's a basic document it should be cited, but if there's a better source that's great. I was aware of this controversy over the streetcars before, but I only came across this article because of this question at RSN. I don't think I'm going to be doing a lot of work on it, although I could pitch in to work on the language, which sounds POVish to me. In my experience that kind of thing just invites counterattacks, and toning it down some wouldn't affect the substance of the argument. If the majority of scholarly opinion is really on one side, I think it should be enough to just say so, without looking like we're trying to guide the reader toward the correct conclusion. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I move this to the GM/Streetcar talk page? I'd like to respond where others there might see it.Anmccaff (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Sure, go ahead. I'll join in, though it may be tomorrow since I've got some work to take care of today. If you want to reply to the comments at RSN maybe you could bring that too. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. One more problem that I forgot to mention is that the lead is too long. The body of the article has about 28,000 chars. According to WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should be two or three paragraphs. Currently it has nine paragraphs, including two block quotes. I think most of that material should be moved down into the body of the article. The lead should probably have three paragraphs, structured roughly 1) intro 2) allegations by Snell et. al. 3) rebuttal by others. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree as to the length. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Margin1522 with regard to the length of the lead. Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As do I; the problem is how to do it without giving undue weight to different aspects of the article.Anmccaff (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Schrag's "The Bus is Young and Honest" is available free online now....

....but it probably won't be for long. Good source for bustification in New York, and strongly refutes the article's current take that GM was the driving factor through Hertz and Yellow.["The Bus is Young and Honest" ] Conspirophiles, note: the title is ironic, not literal. Anmccaff (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that link should have been The Bus is Young, and Honest  Stepho  talk  05:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Why no vertical bar?Anmccaff (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The trick is to use single square brackets and a space instead of a vertical bar. No idea why, probably a hang over from the very early days of wiki markup. I've been reading that paper in 1 minute bursts while waiting for the computer to complete other jobs. A fascinating read!  Stepho  talk  10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Yeah, it tells the story pretty well...unlike, I could add, the way the piece here does now. I think New York should be removed from the "serious, plausible" side of the argument.Anmccaff (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more decent references on this side the paywall

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-urban&month=9803&week=d&msg=KZP7MkAdGTwwzsxVhIo64A&user=&pw=

Martha Bianco's review of "Taken for a ride. (It also beautifully illustrates what scholars mean by "popular."

http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/publications/transportofdelightthesis.pdf

Jonathan Richmonds doctoral thesis on LA Transit. Sy ADler pointed out that everything Brad Snell had written about LA transit is wrong. Richmond is close to being the AntiSnell, then.

http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/publications/amtrakthesis.pdf

JR again. Only tangential, but useful. Anmccaff (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Replacing some or all general references with inline citations

an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity."

References are a real mess here. "Pacific Electric Railway (1901-1965)" -wikispaces? lol outdated link and many more, I just cannot name all at this point.Spearmind (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130518124817/http://metrotransportationlibrary.wikispaces.com/Pacific+Electric+Railway+%281901-1965%29 appears to work rather nicely, though, and requires very little laughing, aloud or otherwise.Anmccaff (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what you call a reference?Spearmind (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems to be accurate, which puts it several planes above many other sources used here. Its provenance is weak, and it (obviously) isn't stable, and I haven't had a chance to evaluate all the other pages on it. With some sourcing, some footnotes inside it, and a better place to find it than the Wayback Machine, it could be a perfectly good source.Anmccaff (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

lol wikispaces, No this is not a source. Tell me at least the author and when did he publish it.Spearmind (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, changing from "good references" to "source" is a little...I guess "shady" might be the best word. Taking the word "good" out radically alters the meaning. That said, yes, as I mentioned, provenance and stability are both valid questions. Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(It was, fairly obviously, published by LA Metro, through the Dorothy Peyton Gray Transportation Library, less apparently. It's currently down for migration to their own website, as funds allow; next year, maybe the year after. Per phone conversation with the library's digital librarian; probably took less time than you've spent nuking the cite.) Anmccaff (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the Don Strack cite you nuked: Strack is a very strong source; stable for at least 15 years.Anmccaff (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I nuked the cite within references. "Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity" still under WP: citing sources. Put a real reference behind the claim, no footnotes or cites within the references! There are extra sections for that.Spearmind (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are quoting the same set of general rules that also says "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it." Remind me,exactly, where you gained that consensus?

You are also assuming there is no place in the article for parenthetical footnotes. Again, why not? What you've done so far here looks like malicious compliance.

I have to modify this, seeing some of the stuff you've done since, but I still see relevant information -page numbers, for instance- removed, and replaced, when all is said and done, with .

Finally, none of the cites you you deleted were "general references". The rule quoted has nothing to do with what you did, except in the most "general" sense. It is says not to simply reference a work as a whole, but to pin the relevant part of it to the point made. You used it as an excuse to remove the reference altogether.Anmccaff (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious lead paragraph

On April 1, 1939, National City Lines, Inc., had grown from an humble beginning in 1920, consisting of the ownership and operation of two second-hand busses in Minnesota, to ownership or control of 29 local operating transportation companies located in 27 different cities in 10 states.[1] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland. NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that period, although electric traction was preserved or expanded in some locations.[citation needed] Other systems, such as San Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines.[citation needed] Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to subsidiary companies, but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit industry.[citation needed]

"Spearmind, this would be you, I think."

To begin with, this, date, April 1, 1939, has no great relevance to the story being told here, except for one narrow part of the "supplier defendants" involvement. Leaving out the 40-odd total systems eventually acquired is simply wrong, and so is picking a number that post-dates YMAC's initial involvement.

Next, this suggests that "St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland" were acquired by 1939, which is completely false.

If a citation is required for the acquisition of the Spreckel's property in San Diego, it might be because you have removed it; otherwise there should be a serviceable one further down in the article.

You did, apparently, remove a fairly good, if web-based, cite, that detailed the Fitgeralds' involvement in LATl.

There were at least 3 references to the majority of the "supplier defendants," and all of the NCL defendants, being convicted of creating a localized corner on buses and their supplies, and their acquittal of broader charges of transportation monopoly. Again, if a citation is needed, why not restore one that was deleted? Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, there is no need to be use words like 'butchered'. Please reframe the above in light of the advice given in WP:Civil. I suggest you change the section heading to something neutral, for example simply 'Lead'. Also.. it is generally considered to be impolite to mention other contributors by name unless it is necessary and not disparaging. Again, can I request that you review the above in light of that guidance. PeterEastern (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dubious" workable? I think highlighting the contributor makes sense in light of the ongoing source dispue; everyone else involved in it has backed away from anything but minor editing.Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dubious is better, a question mark after it would be perfect. It is however considered very impolite to mention another contributor in the heading as you have done. PeterEastern (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How about, instead, moving it down and adding a ping, perhaps? Maybe two pings, for Bejnar as well on his return.Anmccaff (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the heading. Much better. In general you don't have to add pings, people who are interested in the article will be watching it, If they aren't then get on without them slowly given them time to reappear before drastic changes are made. PeterEastern (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree (odd, that...) in general, but I think it important that Bejnar see what's happened here before going straight forward with...well, with whatever he will go straight forward with.Anmccaff (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spearmind: Thanks for putting energy into this article. A couple of points. Firstly, regarding the lead, there is no need to cite most claims made in the lead according to WP:CITELEAD, for example, Bianco is citied in the body so there is no need to cite the claim again the lead. Conversely, if the information is not included in body then it probably should be added, or the claim removed from the lead. It is also suggested that the lead should be kept to no more than four paragraphs, see WP:LEADLENGTH. PeterEastern (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

here we go. I think its notable to have in the lead a picture how things developed. History is everything. The block is full of years and development, probably undisputed for a long time. Before whe had this 1938-1950 sentence. You can see from article history. I did not something else but correct the claim not based on a direct reference but footnotes linking to another reference not covering the story, what I call mathematical acrobatics instead of primary/secondary reference. I dont know what is dubious in the articles lead. Who started this footnote tsunmai here? You may like it or not but keep it out of reference list instead of the direct reference. You can add a note which will be displayed unter the footnotes section. If you dont agree with the number of 27 let us know with some material. I dont think its a good idea to keep references for claims out of the leading part. There are too many you may call it dubious claims without source.Spearmind (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. All I am saying is that a lead should be kept to four paragraphs and that it is not necessary to cite every claim. For sure we should cite claims that are contentious and all direct quotes, but not everything else. As such I think we should, in time, tighten the lead to four paragraphs by cutting details and should remove all the 'cn' tags related to uncontentious claims supported by the body rather than added sources for them. PeterEastern (talk)

Kunstler not a good source.

Kunstler not a good source:

James Howard Kunstler says, 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. GM had erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses.(Kunstler, James (1993). The geography of nowhere : the rise and decline of America's man-made landscape. New York London: Simon & Schuster. p. 91. ISBN 0-671-88825-0.)

Kunstler's thesis here stovepipes directly back to Snell, which is to say to ideas which were discredited in the early 1970s.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, you seem to have mis-formatted the above. Not sure what you were intending. Can you repair it? PeterEastern (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dunno. It's a quote of some new material introduced, but the footnote references really belong inside the quote block. I do not know how to do that.Anmccaff (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this what [you] were wanting? Note that I have unwrapped the reference to keep the source with the text (references don't work well on talk pages) and done a proper blockquote. Do spend a few mins seeing how I did it so you can do it next time. PeterEastern (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it. (Whether I will still have it tomorrow is, unfortunately, an open question.) Yes, that's what I wanted; this piece is largely, like some of Jane Holtz Kay, and most of Edwin Black, pretty much a regurgitation of Snell's 73'/74' piece. For most scholarly purposes this is meat that has gone high, repackaged just to get a new sell-by on it. Kunstler is an architectural critic, general curmudgeon, and a polemicist, not a historian.Anmccaff (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

He is a source anyways if its good for you or not. He is notable and has his own wikipedia page. Everything is cited well from his book. Please follow an agenda that keep the article open for many perspectives. There are so many cites missing probably since the very beginning. Footnotes and inline citations within reference. What a horrible footnote tsunami. Who is Guy Span, dont find him on WP. Reminds me of span guys. Is that a real name? "Span guys transmit horizontal force to another pole until an anchor guy can be used." It describes the Span Snell interaction? lolSpearmind (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm, no. I don't come into this, nor do you, or anyone else as individuals here. It's a question of scholarly weight. Kunstler is someone quoting a discredited source as fact, which means he, too, can not be considered credible on this matter. David Irving and David Icke are both notable, have their own wiki pages, and can be sourced to stable formats. That doesn't mean that they should be given equal weight to others, however, and neither should anyone who quotes them as reliable sources. (Icke, BTW, is a trolley conspiracy believer, for whatever that is worth. I don't know if he's actually linked it into the Reptilian bit.)Anmccaff (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ummm...yes. The wires supporting, say, an electric trolley wire are often a span wire going from pole to pole, with guy wires to the ground outboard from each pole. It's also a term used in rigging, longshore, and , in the past, in siege artillery, for a "guy(ed) span (pole)." I assume one of these explains the pen-name; since he first began using it about Bay Area electric traction history, I'm betting it's that.Anmccaff (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope Kunstler is not quoting anyone in the sentence which I assume is useful for the article. Pls go and read the book! Dunno why you come along with Irving and Icke here. They have nothing to do with the article and subject. What are you trying and why you choose a negative describing subject header and not a neutral one. You did not explain based on material why Kunstler is not a good source. I understand this is your opinion but personal opinions should not play any role here. Spearmind (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kunstler is quoting numbers straight out of Snell, explicitly crediting the senate subcommittee hearings on the next page, and vectoring the "100 system" and the Red Cars myths. I read the book a couple of decades ago, around when it came out, not long after I had read a perfectly adequate debunking of it in the LA Reader, A Chicago Reader clone. Scott Bottles was either the author or a source, don't remember which. I also read Jack Smith (The quintessential Los Angeles newsman of the Postwar era, like Herb Caen to SF, Breslin for New York, Royko for Chicago) making apology for being sucked in by it in the late 80's. I have the Reader article around here...someplace, still. That, and learning that my brother-in-law believed the story, or at least had had it vectored to him by a high school teacher, led me to call Hilton directly; he still kept an office at UCLA then. (I tried to get in touch with him again a few months ago; he died between the time I started looking and I found out where he moved to.) I ran into the story repeatedly, both as a collected urban legend on alt.folklore.urban, and at the Straight Dope site. Believe me, I'm familiar with it. You appear to be quoting a vector of it from Kunstler through Flink to Snell, maybe with an intermediate step. (The Automobile Age is the cite given, right?)Anmccaff (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I said already the content I placed here is not a quote from any other person, its his own work. Authors get influenced by several things in their life. It does not mean they occupy a theory as their own. You seem to describe people as puppet instructed by someone else. I think he is a notable source and the lines I posted help to understand the subject. You are trying to discredit a person with no real reason. I dont know why you come up with a bunch of other people here. Tell us exactly what makes Kunstler for you "not a good source". "You appear to be quoting a vector of it ". Thats no helpful info at all for your claim. I just wonder about what names we have to deal with: the "span guy" Flink and Snell both sound like "quick/fast", Kunstler is like "artist" in German. I dont question their credibility at all its just the names that meet a subject.Spearmind (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Kunstler has explicitly footnoted his sources, who have in turn explicitly footnoted their sources, and the footnotes lead back to a discredited source. That sort of thing doesn't get improved by filtering through another set of kidneys. It is, simply, wrong. Kunstler is inaccurate on this subject. Placing him in an article that is intended as non-fiction, as a source of fact, on this subject, is wrong.

In colloquial English, "quoting" is sometimes used to mean "sourcing from, but not necessarily repeating verbatim." Kunstler uses a source for facts, which in turn relies on another source: Flink's "The Automobile Age," which itself goes back, eventually, to the "fast guy"...or the slow guy: the surname "Snell" is generally from an old disused cognate word for speed, but is also sometimes a corruption of "snail." You are quoting (in the loose, colloquial sense, and indirectly)a discredited source. This is extremely obvious if you read the footnotes, and track back through from source to source.

Perhaps you could use a mnemonic here: "Kunstler often uses artistic license." Several, come to think of it: "S(ch)nell plays fast and loose with facts." "Flink zips past some flaws in the narrative." That said, Flink is a solid scholar, who happened to be quoting a source he did not realize was questionable. Kunstler, on the other hand, like Snell, is a polemicist, not a historian. He should not be treated as an accurate, unbiased source. This has already been discussed at some length here for Snell.Anmccaff (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I must repeat that in the text I used is not any footnote, its his own work. "Kunstler often uses artistic license." maybe people think he does. Maybe Guy Span does not like public transportation. Such things dont play any role here. Some say one person is accurate another disagrees. Some say one is polemistic you may agree or not. Some say one is conspiracy nut, or even an idiot others disagree. I dont understand the point. This is not important here. These are as always personal opinions. What I can see Kunstler is at least a notable source and the sentence enriches the article.Spearmind (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel you must repeat that, but that isn't relevant to what I said. Kunstler explicitly lists his source of information, who does so as well, and so forth down the line. It ends with a source that is overwhelmingly rejected as unreliable by almost every single scholar whose work was central to the subject. Of the few who do not reject it -and that would be about 3 out of at least one hundred, one has since stopped referring to his own work -Glenn Yago has removed it from his exhaustive, minutia-filled CV, one, George Smerk, has accepted explicitly the faults in Snell's scholarship, and one, St Clair, never made it a central part of his thesis n the first place. I dunno if he's disowned it or not, but the cloak-and-dagger stories were never an integral part of the "technology foreclosure" argument.

Now, as with Snell himself, Kunstler, like Kay (a more respectable source, but her major publisher, the Nation, discretely apologized for this aspect of her writing in her obituary), and other commentators, were certainly a part of public discussion, and this has had real effects, both good and bad, but are not reliable sources for what actually happened, nor, I expect, did they entirely intend to be. Unless we want to return the article to its roots, and keep the discussion purely about myth and legend, they can only be sourced for limited, specific purposes.Anmccaff (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

" It ends with a source that is overwhelmingly rejected" What means overwhelmingly rejected. Who rejects. What do you mean with at least 100. Where yout get your numbers? Is it based on a poll? And what sources do you mean are rejected. And what "dubious" stuff exactly did Kunstler cite from such source. They way you talk is not very helpful for WP when you dont fill claims with material. And why you again use a negative header for this section? I think you were asked that several times before. Like Kay like Snell like that like him. Why you dont refer to what content exactly you dispute? What makes Kunstler not a reliable source who says so? The way you argue I think you overweigh your personal opinions.Spearmind (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to argue by merely repeating yourself, I suggest we take this to the reliable sources inquiry that is already open elsewhere. As it is, everything you've said here, except for the personal comment, is already asked and answered above.Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source inquiry? lol Time is precious, but its up to you. Already open? Where?.Spearmind (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"27 cited in appeal."

With reference to this edit:

Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation - a Standard subsidiary — gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.[1] Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland. NCL often converted streetcars to bus operations in that period, although electric traction was preserved or expanded in some locations. Other systems, such as San Diego's, were converted by outgrowths of the City Lines. Most of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in the sale of buses, fuel, and supplies to subsidiary companies, but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the transit industry.

The 27 quoted in the appeal included a splitting of the Elgin-Aurora system, a combined city and interurban line, into separate systems. This jumps out when looking at actual system lists, but looks like an additional purchase otherwise. (Note for Transpondials: "Elgin, Illinois, although named for "Elgin, Moray," is pronounced with a soft or softened "G," as are derivatives from it, such as watches, street sweepers, and so forth.)

-- Anmccaff (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• You rely on the old text. Yes I understand but actually we have an accurate source for 27. The number 25 was more a result af mathematical acrobatics instead a direct reference, which is everything counts here. 1938-1950 was not covered by a reference (Its not logical at all.) I mean reference not footnotes linking to another incomplete reference.Spear part was not covered by the source.mind (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I prefer to rely on accurate sources rather than any text here. You have no such that suggests that NCL had acquired 27 systems, but rather that it possessed them, or previously had possessed them, at a certain point. Since systems were split, merged, created ab novo, imbedded in or extracted from others,and sold off, one has to be very careful not to confuse acquisition numbers and holdings, and holdings over time with holdings at some point in time.Anmccaff (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Anmccaff, can I again ask you not to mention contributors by name on talk, and particularly not in headings unless necessary and appropriate. It is not relevant that it was Trackinfo who adjusted the number and provided the supporting reference so he should not be mentioned. Please adjust the subject heading. How about the simpler '27 Citied on appeal'? PeterEastern (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's clear that this is a reference to a particular edit summary tag, and I'm damned if I can see how it isn't relevant, nor can I see how it could be taken pejoratively. Nor, IMS, did Trackinfo adjust the number, he merely (correctly) pointed out there were sources showing a different one. That said, I've moved it below the header.Anmccaff (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that you have still not actually removed Trackinfo's name from the section heading. (have have linked to the relevant edit in the body of the article btw, and removed Trackinfo's name from it which is better). Please now update the heading to something neutral. PeterEastern (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have...thrice now. Each time it's been blocked by an edit conflict. Lessee if the fourth time is a charm.Anmccaff (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody will be damned. "gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities" - of the former sentence - I prefer to rely on accurate sources too. Can you deliver an alternative reference? Wait I put the original text here:

It is undisputed that on April 1, 1939, defendant National City Lines, Inc., had grown from an humble beginning in 1920, consisting of the ownership and operation of two second-hand busses in Minnesota, to ownership or control of 29 local operating transportation companies located in 27 different cities in 10 states.

Spearmind (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the talk and the old versions of the article yet? That may save a bit of time here. Don't forget the stuff that is archived.

When you do, you will see a (literal) text-book reference to NCL at a certain point in time, which was before the "supplier defendants" involvement as such. It may, in fact still be in the article; Ruggles? Then look at the (varied) timeline of the "supplier defendant's" involvement, and see why the court's selection of a particular date for one purpose may not be appropriate for other purposes.Anmccaff (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Undisputed, this is a cite from the courts decision not one of the parties involved. But what is you point. What number you wanted to include and based on which source. But also the 1938 - 1950 part was not covered by the source. The year 1950 you dont find there at all. Spearmind (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Who do you think made the claim it was "from one of the parties involved?"Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest, then, that you work back through the edits and see what the 1950 originally refered to, before you assume that a particular source is supposed to support it. In many cases, especially in the lead or in the topic sentences of paragraphs, the cites are assumed to follow in the body, not clutter the start. Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I said like no footnotes in references by mistake. Footnotes and only these beside the source are ok within reference, but they must actually link to a real reference covering the claim or to a separate footnote section. Its not helpful for readers to review Guy Span from footnotes at the bottom of the page. Just look at the New York city article or better the September 11 attacks article, to see that there is no extra footnote section necessary or ref groups were used. Editors decide for one system only. It makes things just more complicated for everyone. You have to decide if ref groups are really needed (usually an article doesnt need them) leading from the article down under to a footnote section, is it not enough to put things under the same ref name to make it easy for readers and use just one system and to try to put all info of inline citations directly into the text?Spearmind (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy Span

"Although "Span" might now be a noted writer -Wiki has made him one" Well his theory is ...I dont want to use the words he has in his vocabulary. Lets say adventurous. Is he neutral when calling a concurring theory "paranoid"? Even the article is only able to use him as footnote otherwise it can only link to his very own website. There is no real link to the outside world which publishes stuff able to put in a reference. I would suggest not to use him as long it acts as primary source.Spearmind (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed Guys Span pretty extensively during the dispute resolution process here. Can I suggest that for starters you review that for starters if you haven't already (search for the phrase 'span' if I was you to find the places where he is mentioned)? Not conclusive outcome to the discussion, other than possibly a recommendation that we don't use him where we have an alternative. PeterEastern (talk)

lol I know that kind of conclusions from United Nations Security Council. Will be hard to finde someone who could replace him as extensive deliverer for unique footnotes Spearmind (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it was hardly a conclusion! Bianco, Martha (1998) and Slater, Cliff (1997) were considered our best secondary sources. Bianco is very underused in the article currently. PeterEastern (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

lol looking foward what editors have to say to Pietila as new ref.Spearmind (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate Peter Eastern's improvement of the lede. But back to my original question. Why is Span and particularly his comment about "delusions of paranoia" in the lede when we cannot identify this individual; who Anmccaff seems to know and has said is writing under an alias. What is the body of work that shows he is a qualified expert to be quoted in a direction shifting comment in the lede? Trackinfo (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, even though I was the person who added that quote to the lede 2 years ago or thereabouts, I have no strong views about it's continued inclusion and have avoided getting into an discussions on content or phrasing for the past two months (other that on the dispute board). As such do please consider the quote on it merits and keep it, remove it or change it to something else as you see fit. PeterEastern (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hartmut Esslinger not a good source too?

Anmccaff recently brought James Howard Kunstler to the DRN board. Now he tried to delete a sentence originating from Hartmut Esslinger. Are there funded objections against his reliability?Spearmind (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is mostly a volunteer outfit; the objection are generally unfunded. As discussed below, that appears to be a tertiary work without cites, written by an author with no particular expertise on the subject of this article, about another subject, advancing a thesis which is generally not held by higher-weight scholars, as I've mentioned below.Anmccaff (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"appears to be a tertiary work" lol Now if you would prove your claim with material. What footnote you dont like this time, while I dont see one. You alone questioning the "expertise". Thats just another personal opinion simply has no relevance at all. I must say your claims become more and more ridiculous. Feel free to bring this to any of the boards you might want to serve. What I suggest you is to internalize what have said PeterEastern, Trackinfo and also Margin1522 on RSN or the admin notice board.Spearmind

(talk) 14:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Spearmind. Anyone with a decent high school (I suspect that would be gymnasium in your world) background can see, on simple inspection, that it is a tertiary work without cites. Now, since high schools aren't what they used to be, I suppose that the bar is moved higher, but still. This is a very low quality cite for proof of fact, although by no means the worst you added here.Anmccaff (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Esslinger is a secondary and also reliable source. Remind me if I missed a footnote on the given page of his book. And there are three more "mainstream", No that was fun, I dont use such terms, references for the sentence in the article. You would say "hundreds more" are outta there, I don't use such additions since they are not helpful. Search the Absolute Truth but Wikipedia is to cite reliable sources where its possible to review the things said. Its does not play any role what you think is a weak citation or not. Personal opinions, let them behind. If all the feedback for you isnt enough, I forgot to mention Bejnar, open cases again and again about Esslinger, Musil, Michels, Greenwald and so many more to question their reliability as source.Spearmind (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, your cites almost entirely fail NPOV, although you did pick up one quite good one, possibly by accident.Anmccaff (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources contradicted by other cites given very inappropriate weight.

In the early 1900s, General Motors' long-time president, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., began implementing a plan to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, Sloan established a special unit within GM that was charged with, among other things, the task of replacing the United States' electric railways with cars, trucks, and buses. Consumers who no longer had the option of taking the streetcar turned first to the bus lines and, eventually, to owning and driving their own automobiles.

References

Low-weight, higher-remove sources. A strong Secondary source, such as Flink, overwhelms something like Kunstler.Anmccaff (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well this is nonsense you dont decide which source is stronger than another you can bring this to DRN board again. We have notable, verifiable, reasonable sources here which support the claim of the articles sentence which explains the conspiracy. "Something like Kunstler" is respectless to sources which dont support your private opinion, which overweights here, thats not helpful for the articles forecome. When someone comes up with terms like "conspiracy theorist" against other people personal ideology enters the game which is not needed here. Kunstler is not like Esslinger, Musil or Michels. No one is like the other, all have different stories to tell (you can assume from the book titles) they are not puppets of anybody else. Wondering why you dont start also with Pietila or Robbins. Why again you cannot keep the above subjects name neutral? I support peters wish that you need a break here.Spearmind (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do decide which is stronger...although you are free to also, of course. That's what evaluating sources is about. As I've mentioned at the DRN board, this is under dispute there, awaiting the return of the moderator. In the meanwhile, it is also open at RSN; did you not get notice that you were mentioned there?

−

So, let me reiterate. First, citing a source for information which one can not know directly does not make an author a "puppet" -very loaded word that, BTW - but it could help make him a scholar. Good scholars, unless they are widely recognized first-hand experts on the subject at hand, have to show their own sources, and even then a citeless work has less weight. Esslinger was born in..what '44? Kunstler around '50? How could they possibly know about prior events, except through others? Is esslinger an historian? A transit historian? What special expertise does he bring to the subject, that would give him greater weight over Hilton, Post, Garrison, Levinson, Bianco, Slater, Richmond, Schrag, Smith, Demoro, Cudahy, Bottles, Smerk, Churella...well, I hope you get the idea. Mainstrean scholarship on the subject is dismissive of Snell's thesis.

A source gains scholarly weight when it is well sourced, when the author is expert in the field, and when it it is written about the field, not tangential to it. All four of the cites in question fall down on all of these points.

Anmccaff (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"How could they possibly know about prior events" lol is that a question of their birth date? Its all about secondary references here followed by others, thats the way it works. Its not helpful to attach labels to authors. And it does not really matter if you call somebody a journalist, historian, novelist, expert, vegetarian, conspiracy theorist and so on. I do not care about labels. You don't need any degree for such at all. If one has "expertise" or not is always an opinion, such labels are not helpful in Wikipedia but references. Opinions again like "greater weight" do not matter, its a nothing what a human being can measure. Someone published a book I would generally prefer to call an author. Thats beyond any doubts. If you have concurring voices all deserve to be heard. "Mainstream scholarship on the subject is dismissive of Snell's thesis." lol where you have that from? Source please. lol What is "mainstream scholarship" Wikipedia does not care about what is felt as mainstream but on information based on sources. For me this appears like children in kindergarden and every child wants his sand castle is the biggest and most beautiful. You must learn to keep you personal ideology in the background if you actually really want to contribute to an article.Spearmind (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

...right, so, if they can only know from "secondary references", they write tertiary works, and if there are no cites, and we can't even determine their sources, they have next to no scholarly weight.

Of course it's helpful to attach labels to authors, and other people. If we have a medical question, or better still, a medical problem, it's often useful to ask if the person we are about to consult is a "medical doctor," a "nurse practitioner," a "physician's assistant," an "alternative medicine therapist," a "research scientist," a "noted expert" or a "quack." The same goes for everything else in life. This doesn't, of course, ensure accuracy or a successful outcome, but it often works better than asking the "man on the street."

Again, any scholar can measure "greater weight." That's what scholarship is about, learning how to evaluate and judge sources, and wikipedia explicitly depends on it. Wiki, according to ... Wiki, is supposed to be about "mirror[ing] the current consensus of mainstream scholarship," not about grabbing "sources" that back a particular viewpoint more or less at random from a websearch. "Due weight" is a very, very important thing to Wiki, although around here, you might not notice that.

How do I know that mainstream scholars back a particular thesis? Well, in this case, it's from reading, corresponding with, or speaking to: Hilton, Due, Demoro, Cudahy, Post, Richmond, Adler, Bianco, "Span," Bottles, Slater, Schrag, Smerk, Churella...that's just off the top of my head, there. Nobody among them, except Smerk a little, takes the Big Conspiracy idea seriously at all. It's from reading Yago, who, on reflection, has erased any personal connection with his own book from his CV. It's from reading some of the primary sources. As a man who likes to laugh, you'll love reading Snell. It's a pity, though, that he wasn't trying to be funny. It's from knowing enough about general North American history to see at a glance that actual history seldom reflected GM involvement. It's from knowing a bit about rail. (Anyone who does finds the idea that roads adopted diesel because of evil plots frankly laughable.) It's from knowing, and having formal instruction in, some aspects of transportation. Mainstream scholars don't buy it, and that's why you have to get self-published dreck, or secondary related scholarship.

(Please add any lols you need to help understand that.)Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Kunstler's text is self-contradicted.

James Howard Kunstler says, 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. According to Kunstler, GM erected a byzantine network of subsidiaries and holding companies to carry out its mission, using its financial muscle to buy up streetcar lines, scrap the tracks, and convert the routes for buses.

References

Kunstler's own endcites in the section quoted directly contradict him. Open question on this on two separate dispute boards; one open, one dormant.Anmccaff (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Again you claim things but dont come with sources supporting your claim. Tell us exactly where Kunstler quoted what from who and why this is explaining your term "dubious" or "not good source". Undisputed this is an correctly cited authors statement here, which must not represent the view of the editors. The statement is Kunstlers very own work. Why you cannot choose neutral subject names?Spearmind (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The claim is adequately documented twice, both on RSN here [[2]], and in Archive 109 here[[3]]. Kunstler cites Flink; the cite given directly, emphatically refutes Kunstler's position.Anmccaff (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no real arguments here or there. My question above remains unanswered. Notice the DRN is archived.Spearmind (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is archived because the moderator is unavailable. You still haven't answered why you use a cite whose endnotes contradict it.Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good that article is protected now. But I was about to change:

"-National City Lines- which by the time was reorganized as holding corporation" corp. must read company...Spearmind (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Some stuff I consider dubious.

Because people in cities had great public transit and interurban rail systems Well beyond dubious, and tendentious. I believe we've all seen a good many strong cites that suggest this was not the case at all from the Jitney era on. Would anyone care to defend this?Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

GM and other auto makers decided that they needed to eliminate these systems or convert them to buses, dubious|Not only are there no decent cites fro a wider GM conspiracy, there are next to none, outside of fringe elements, that believe any other auto manufacturer was in it. Again, no cite whatsoever, and very unlikely to find a good one.Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thus including urbanites to buy cars. GM began building buses 1925 and formed an owned a controlling interest in Greyhound. Dubious Morover, the Hertz-connected operation was, until the early 30s, unwilling to actually convert the low-end NYC streetcar lines. Initially, they could only make money on the carriage trade; the bus fare was double that of the trolley.Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For years it tried to buy urban rail transit systems on its own and convert them to buses. GM got together with Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire, Mack Trucks and Phillips Petroleum to form and finance a front company -National City Lines- whose job was to buy up urban rail networks and convert them to buses. dubious Front company simply doesn't fit. Next, the supplier defendants assembled slowly, and GM itself was still in the electric vehicle business up until 1938.Anmccaff (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

They also lobbied for two important pieces of the legislation. The first was the "Hayden Cartwright act" of 1935. dubious This required states to dedicate their state gas taxes to highway building, rather then putting them into the state's general fund. This ensured a steady supply of money for new highways.}} The second piece of legislation was the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which required electric utilities (who owned the most of the rail transit systems in the US) Dubious| twice so. To begin with, it didn't require any particular type of utility to do something, it required all of the private ones to, but none of the publicly owned systems. Next, it's unclear if the systems owned by utility conglomerates were a majority. }}Anmccaff (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

and sometime. to sell off all their streetcar lines. With hundreds of streetcar companies dumped on the market, simultaneously, in the midst of a depression, they could be purchased very cheaply. GM´s front company NCL was thus able to buy up and dismantle rail transit systems in over 200 US cities. Dubious Again, anyone take this seriously? 200 systems? Why not say 2,000? 2,000,000?

References

-- Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

https://books.google.de/books?id=pCoK3vn7URcC&pg=PA126

lol your selection of subject names here is "dubious" and a lot of things more

a) "great" is a personal opinion and can be removed.

b) since I have no reviewable material for the claim "other auto makers" by this time and the "eliminate and replace thing" is also to find in the block before, we can delete the first sentence including "great", for your info thats: "Because people in cities had great public transit and interurban rail systems, GM and other auto makers decided that they needed to eliminate these systems or convert them to buses, thus including urbanites to buy cars." and only that, I dont see this sentence adds value if we cannot go into detail,

c) should remain as it is

d) should remain as it is,"assembled slowly" never heard about it, do you have a source?

e) not dubious at all Spearmind (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute I must correct myself to point b) "GM and other automakers" (Joseph McKinney; Amy Isler Gibson (22 February 2010). The End of the Road: The Transition to Safe, Green Horsepower. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-1-4500-3237-7.) - is supported by Goddard: https://books.google.de/books?id=pCoK3vn7URcC&pg=PA126 saying "Sloan and his fellow auto makers" so I would like to keep the fluent lead as it is and add him as another reference. No doubt "great" has to be removed (personal opinion).

-- Spearmind (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's an unofficial limit on the number of self-published "books" you should have in an article; it'd be a pity to use it up just in the lead.Anmccaff (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Goddard is already part of our sources added by someone else: Goddard, Stephen (1996). Getting there : the epic struggle between road and rail in the American century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 69-70. ISBN 978-0-226-30043-6.Spearmind (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok I didnt notice Xlibris is for self publishers. But it doesnt mean it cannot be used. I think its a very good text (besides "great") to lead from one part to the next. Will substantiate "GM and other automakers" by Goddard just the way in the sentence above. 200 cities - will be replaced by "many".Spearmind (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done much with this recently but I agree that the new paragraph(s) added to the intro on March 1st are heavy with bias and are not well supported. I think the "Because people in cities..." paragraph should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as a global observation, how anyone can decide what represents the center-of-mass of mainstream scholarship if they don't believe in evaluating sources. To put my objection into Wiki-ish, which I'm not fluent in, it violates NPOV. It looks rather like the result of an internet search based on tendentious keywords, and I agree it adds nothing.Anmccaff (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Can {{lead too long|date=March 2015}} be added to the top of this article? Its lead is too long, but the article is full-protected and I can't edit it. Epic Genius (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I think you can see several references to to that by several editors in the talk above. Anmccaff (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Separately, and unrelated to your comment: I think it is obvious from a glance that the article is disputed, and the banners reflecting that should be replaced. I'd add, "and locked," personally.Anmccaff (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course its too long, there is no need to add "another box" to the article{{}}. It will be done as soon the lock is lifted. Behind the 200 cities (=lead like length of GM article), which will read "many" cities by the way, we will find some new and constructive subject headers. Share your ideas. To make it clear the article is currently disputed by Anmccaff against majority and he dragged stuff to several boards aka FORUMSHOPPING where he until now didnt receive acceptance for his way questioning sources which is weak in arguments and not really constructive. I agreed with PeterEastern to remove the banner you see there. Almost everywhere where it was needed cn marks were added. So the current banner has no substance anymore. info:: Epicgenius disputed the length of the articles lead not the article itself!Spearmind (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

reminder: "Span, regardless of which editor cited him, is not a reliable source. See above discussion. He may be a useful source, but any disputed facts need to be cited elsewhere. --Bejnar (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)"---Spearmind (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A revert, I think is called for....

...but to what? I'd support, rather strongly, straight back to the version with the dispute warnings. It's disputed, and in my opinion, strongly NPOV at its roots. Certainly, though, a bloated lead with some of the worst cites gathered since Titus Oates is neither easily fixable, nor worth fixing. Any agreement?Anmccaff (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I would propose reverting back to the Feb 21st edit. I'm sorry to say but the new material added by Spearmind is largely really bad stuff. I looked at a few of his sources and they are not original sources. They are largely texts which mention this conspiracy as a given. Since they simply mention it as a given rather than investigate the topic I wouldn't be inclined to use any of them as a reasonable source. Furthermore, a review of Spearmind's other contributions and his other edit wars makes me inclined to say we should remove his edits rather than work around something like 150 changes in the last month. --98.87.30.30 (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Edit: Sorry, this is Springee, I didn't realize my login had timed out. I need to find my password again. I will find it before making any article edits.

I might be inclined to go farther, including nuking a bit of my own work, provided there was some consensus to use some of the better stuff as the foundation of the article. Right now, the article still takes some snellery for granted, gliding from the trolley's heyday right up to the late thirties. It also glosses over some of the fundamental flaws with the GM-as-cause-for-trolley-decline, such as GM's very real involvement with the All-Service Vehicle in New Jersey.Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Spearmind did cite one decent source, but I don't think it is available online at all, and that's another real problem the article, and Wikipedia as a whole, has: not enough editors can, or will, bother going to a real library, and depend too much on what comes up free online.

BTW, Spear is temporarily blocked, so don't take silence as assent there.Anmccaff (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I'm assuming that's you, Springee, yes?Anmccaff (talk)

Nope, not me. --Springee (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still on record that we need to revert a longer way back. I haven't got a specific date, but there is a lot of POV in the current text. The discussion rambles so far off topic, it is impossible to follow, thus also impossible to attract anybody to interject. Let's get the facts out straight (so far we can't even agree on the lede) and methodically tell the story of each angle. There are a lot of opinions here to be covered, most of this content is really opinion. Identify the source of the opinion and try to explain it concisely. Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, do you mind this split off here?

Obviously, I'd disagree with several characterizations here. I don't see that as "rambling," but as expansion to the size needed to address the topic, which has been needlessly broadened by taking some of Snell's assumptions as a given. As it stands now, the idyllic, idealized picture of electric traction BS painted is treated as real; as long as it stays, it's open to more realistic counter-argument.Anmccaff (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is tremendous agreement on the lede/lead. It's too damn long. It contains argument, as opposed to summation. It's now loaded with bad citations, several of which directly contradict each other.Anmccaff (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, let me address you specifically. You have a lot to offer this subject, but you have made discussing it impossible. You take off on tangents, assume opinions to be facts and assume your subsequent amalgamated opinion is therefore justified. Slow down. Please, please try to break things down and stay on subject. Lets take it a paragraph at a time, and I'll suggest we need to do sample edits here on talk to avoid the previous; edit, revert, kitchen sink argument sequences of the past. When the block is removed, please lets not have more craziness. Lets let everybody look at the paragraph, interject and sanitize before we take the obvious disagreements into general public view. I think if we try to deal with these disagreements slowly and carefully you will find we can agree with, I'll say 80%. Take only that part public. Then take your remaining 20% and try to construct a coherent paragraph to explain it. Those of us with dissenting views may also have to do the same. We might have to build sections to track opinion "sets." This way all opinions get covered without it detracting from the entire article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. I think I came into here knowing a good deal about this, and have recalled, re-acquainted myself with, or learned a bit more, and I don't think I've advanced -anything- here that isn't the mainstream scholarly view; "NPOV" in Wiki-ish. Electric traction didn't fade because of a very small, slightly shifty move by GM...nor by much more sneaky, shifty moves by Standard and Firestone. Electric traction's problems began with the near-complete death of rural electric traction with the Good Roads movement and automobiles, and from then forward, electric rail was driven slowly into more dense traffic zones. When that happened, pre-WWI, GM was still a major producer of electric vehicles. (Their electric trucks stopped being made around 1912, but were still in service into the '30s.)Anmccaff (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, to put this in Wiki-ish; Snell isn't a reliable source, and using him as such makes the article imbalanced at its roots; the only way to "balance" it is to counter his assumptions at whatever tedious length it takes to do so. Take Snell and his acolytes out, and it gets much more straightforward.Anmccaff (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The current intro is very bad with lots of non-neutral POV and clearly moves the article far from what it was a few months back. While I understand there was some edit unhappiness, the previous article, even the parts I wasn't entirely happy with, did not read like a conspiracy theorists novel. Could we propose and agree to a roll back date? I don't want to try to work around Spearmind's hundreds of edits.--Springee (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Springee has just rolled back to 22 Feb. I think that is a good call and am happy to work from this point. To be clear, any useful material added since the rollback can be reinserted carefully again, but lets avoid mad heroic series of edits by any one person again. PeterEastern (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What is going on here? Rolling back to February? Please stop vandalism and tell exactly what is disputed. Tranceformb (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Per the user page, Tranceformb appears to be a new, multi-account and is currently blocked. --Springee (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone know a page number for this?

According to Snell, GM's own testimony had shown that by the mid-1950s, "its agents had canvassed more than 1,000 electric railways and that, of these, they had motorized 90%—more than 900 systems."

(Just to be clear, which my marker wasn't, the place I am having trouble finding a ref to this is in the three sets of congressional hearings, it's certainly in the '95 fluff.)Anmccaff (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with PeterEastern regarding the idea of using Bianco's work as an anchor article

All, I recently read through the dispute recently associated with this article. [[4]] I believe that PeterEastern is right that Bianco's article would make for a good anchor article for the Wiki entry. I think Slater's article is a more comprehensive and factual rebuttal of the accusations against GM et al. but it's a rather dry read and doesn't address the question of why people would be so willing to believe the conspiracy theory. Bianco's article, while not as details, does offer insight into why people would latch onto the theory. PeterEastern had mentioned something to this affect in the dispute link. I would support this idea. --Springee (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Garrison and Levinson" and Richmond , the damned retroactive plagiarists*, both cover that, as well as a more direct reason: conspiracy theories justify spending. It's easier to get support for righting a wrong than for fixing a mistake...epecially if the mistake was largely the voter's. Schrag also has some on that. Richmond and Shrag are also available online free now, which never hurts. Anmccaff (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(*The sort of evil bahstid who steals and publishes your original ideas before you even thought of them)Anmccaff (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, please consider redrafting the above for clarity and to removing comments such as ' damned retroactive plagiarists' and 'The sort of evil bahstid who steals and publishes your original ideas'. This is totally meaningless to me, and appears to add nothing to the suggestion raised by Springee. Feel free to remove this comment of mine if you do redraft your response. Until it is clearer I am going to ignore it. PeterEastern (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You know, this is the sort of observation that can't help but be personal, but it genuinely isn't meant as insult: you seem to have a real problem with anything but the dead literal, and I can't help but wonder if that isn't affecting both your evaluation of cites, and your seeming belief that any metaphor must be some coded insult. You can ask me to clarify, but the sources aren't always able to oblige you like that.Anmccaff (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That stated, a restating:

• Garrison and Levinson" and "Richmond," works which might give you a startling sense of deja vu, expressing ideas you yourself have formed independently but much later, both cover the psychological reasons why people vector explanatory or exculpatory urban legends as well, but go beyond the particular work of Martha Bianco you usually cite in covering a more direct reason: conspiracy theories justify political spending. It's easier to get support for righting a wrong than for fixing a mistake...especially if the mistake was largely the voter's. Schrag also has some on that. Richmond and Shrag are also available online free now, which never hurts. Anmccaff (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think I get what you are saying. It can be asked, "If GM et al didn't do this why would people say they did?" One set of answers is what Bianco discusses, ie what roll conspiracy myths can play in culture. The other angle, the one I think you (Anmccaff) are trying to hit on is that in politics the goal is often to get money for your constituents. If you are an urban mayor (say of San Fransisco) it's nice to claim that some corporate conspiracy is the root of your troubles and the solution is federal tax dollars. That does make sense. If we were discussing this on a forum I think we could suggest that as a reasonable hypothesis as to why some people would push the GM killed streetcars story. However, I haven't seen any articles that support this so I would be reluctant to add it to the article even though it makes sense. That said, perhaps a section on what motivates the perpetuation of the story would be good? I think PeterEastern is thinking about adding such information to the article. Do you have any suggested supporting links? Also, who are Schrag, Garrison etc? Were they in the stuff added by Spearmind? Do they talk about this topic or just conspiracies in general? I would be interested if you have some links.--Springee (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Urban Legends -and folktales in general - often simplify the complicated, to make something comprehensible. Many people would rather see life in bumper-sticker slogans. Better still, they'd rather see it in bumper-sticker slogans that blame someone else for whatever is wrong. Finally, people often have a desire to be "on the inside," to know secret facts that others do not, purely for its own sake, and some ULs get legs from that. All of these come into play here.
• Bianco and Adler and Levinson and Richmond (and a good many more) discuss this, there was some excellent stuff on alt.folklore.urban back in the day, Bottles covered it pretty well in passing, either in or through an "LA Reader" piece. That some parts of the story are folklore has been done to death, so much so that several authors bridle if you even mention it.
• If you look up further in talk, there's a link to Schrag "The Bus is Young, and Honest" (the title is ironic, btw) and to several of Richmond's pieces. I've added a several sources for discussion here here on the talk page over the last couple of months whle you were gone.Anmccaff (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff, this is exactly the kind of incoherence I have referred to above. Trackinfo (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of a world views a parenthetical aside as "incoherence," but I'm damned glad I don't have to live there.Anmccaff (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning. Do not continue to speak to other contributors in this way or you will be reported. PeterEastern (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Springee, I think that is what we should do. For starters I am going slowly through the history section focusing it on the facts. PeterEastern (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Early years section

While some focus on the involvement of Hertz, the lines affected were confined to Manhattan, and were operated for more than a decade after purchase, despite intense political and economic pressure from the city government. Electric street traction lasted on a much reduced scale in New York City until the early 1960s in Brooklyn; on steel wheels well into the 1950s, with the last PCC runs on October 31, 1956, and trackless trolleys until July 27, 1960, again, despite considerable political opposition.

References

I think it is certainly relevant that, unlike in the usual conspirophile telling, the article note that the "bustitution" of Manhattan was politically driven, preceded GM, and that far from being a simple tool of GM, the Omnibus interests ran the streetcars as long as they could get away with and still make money; that the bus conversion in Brooklyn was unrelated to any GM interest, and entirely driven by the city government, and that electric street traction lasted another two decades nonetheless. I think you cut flesh and bone as well as fat there.Anmccaff (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just completed an edit pass on the 'Early years' section, which is I think what you are referring to. Feel free to make your own careful edits to it now remaining mindful of the DRN discussion where it was agreed that we would separate the history section from the rebuttal. The rebuttal section is coming later and will be convincing! I do also note that you have again used the wrong template for references on talk. You should use 'reflist talk', not 'reflist' as previously noted. PeterEastern (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"History" from "rebuttal?" No, History from Fantasy. How was it Bejnar expressed it? "Far out theories?" The history of what happened in Manhattan is a good deal broader than the conspirophile telling, and the baldly factual elements should be grouped together.Anmccaff (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" can, and often should, contain further information

The "|reason= parameter is optional but often helpful. It is displayed as a tooltip.
For example, the following usage might be appropriate to the claim that "Humphrey Bogart has won several snooker world championships":

citation needed|reason=This claim needs a reliable source; Bogart was a famous actor,
and his major biographies don't mention snooker.|date=March 2015}

(from Template:Citation_needed).

...so, leave 'em when I put 'em.Anmccaff (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. However... if you do wish to add a reason then please format it in the specified above, and not just by adding text unformatted in the way you have. Also, can you please also take a look at the guidance for use of the disputed tag. I believe you are often using these incorrectly and are not formatting them in the required way - see the 'incorrect uses' section. I believe you are also using them excessively. PeterEastern (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I try to keep things as simple as possible, for obvious reasons...i.e., that my proofreading skills are extremely variable, running from excellent, very occasionally, to execrable, all too often.Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please resolve the formatting issues around cn and review your use of the disputed tag as a matter of priority, ie before you make other contributions to the article or to talk. PeterEastern (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought, and think, that they are workable, and think, and had thought, that it would be better use of your and my time to fix the problems they identify, or to tweak any that remain after that, than to simply sweep the problems under the rug. I also think that it is not my call to decide your actions, nor yours for mine; bur, as I also said earlier, their are whiffs of Ownership around here.Anmccaff (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Following the relevant WP guidelines is not optional. PeterEastern (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at the guideline, it explicitly shows examples in which the "reason=" is left out, and left understood.Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm.. So in Template:Dubious where does it say you add freeform text without a 'reason=' and where does it say you can use dubious tag without a link to a talk section discussing the issue? This current example seems to fail both. '{{dubious|how was this directly impacted by GM?|date=January 2015}}' PeterEastern (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm...right in the "Template data" where it points out that a date is "suggested" while the other two parameters are "optional?" (Although, to be fair, a link is "strongly suggested" elsewhere.)Anmccaff (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so if the other two parameters are optional then I believe you could do '{{dubious|date=January 2015}}' or '{{dubious|reason=how was this directly impacted by GM?|date=January 2015}}' but not '{{dubious|how was this directly impacted by GM?|date=January 2015}}' It is however also "strongly suggested to simultaneously discuss the dubious statement on the article's talk page – and to point this template to a specific talk page section (either new or existing) which contains that discussion". As such I ask you again to format the cn and dubious tags correctly and link as recommended to a section on talk. Alternatively you could carefully adjust the content and provide appropriate cites for your changes. PeterEastern (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, text without "reason=" works also, although it will default to a link of that name if it comes up second in line. And a simple "dubious" works fine, too, since the date -will- get botted on. The "reason=" appears to allow you to scramble the order, or to vary the name of the section in talk from the explanation of the problem. In some cases, obviously, they'd work well as section title and subject paragraph in talk.Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could yourself examine the cites you have used, and evaluate them in terms of the tag, and perhaps compare and contrast them to other sources, such as the lovely specimens a few sections overhead from here, and perhaps, talk about them -metaphorically, of course- in Talk. We could even both do both.Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your responses are becoming less incompressible. My request is simple. Please fix the tags you reinstated to conform to the guidelines or remove them. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As discussed, they -do- conform with the guidelines, just not with the best and highest reccomended. As I run through, I'll upgrade those that appear to require focused talk on Talk. BTW, "Incompressible?"Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I note that rather than reviewing use of dubious and formatting them appropriately, you have actually added more poorly formatted dubious tags. To encourage you to take a proper look at these I have deleted all badly formatted cn and dubious tags. Please read guidance as requested and follow it before reinstating any of these. PeterEastern (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think I had not read it -before- placing them? They fit and work.Anmccaff (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have reinstated all the dubious and cn tags, but have not formatted all of them correctly yet. Yawn.. To be clear, I expect you to sort the rest of them out as a matter of priority. PeterEastern (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy Span

An aside: I've contacted the Bay Crossing's editor and their publisher who confirmed that, as I remembered, the fellow who writes as "Guy Span" was not self-editing for them. I can probably get something available online to confirm that. I think that removes a major obstacle to using those two pieces widely.Anmccaff (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if he was not the editor of the publication at the time, which he claimed to be, we should get an identification of his credentials as an expert in the field to be using this pseudonymous individual as a source. Trackinfo (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To begin with, no. "Guy Span" did not claim to be "editor of the publication at the time," he claimed to be "editor," which can be anything from "glorified proofreader" to "editor-in-chief," and could have been for any of several periods.Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Next, both common sense and [Wiki] policy suggest that pseudonymous sources can be acceptable. Obvious examples include organizational spokesfigures; you don't need to know which ghostwriter voiced Betty Crocker to realize that she was speaking ex cucina for General Mills. Newspaper, magazine and even scholarly journal columns are often pseudonymous, with the understanding they speak for the organization itself, or some facet of it, and that the publishers and editor themselves stand behind it.Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Finally given some of the "expertise" credited here, which obviously falls on its own merit, why should "Guy Span" be singled out, rather than, say, "Louis Guilbault?" You tried to get him added a second time to the article; what "credentials as an expert" do you think the fellow possesses?Anmccaff (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Inline Dispute

The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which made it illegal for a single private business to both provide public transport and supply electricity to other parties caused great difficulties for the streetcar operators which were frequently also generators of electricity (disputed-inline

This section implies that many traction companies had problems because they could not sell spare electricity, which was not the case. Several major examples to the contrary, in fact: LARy was badly hurt by drought shortages of hydroelectric power in the '20s, leading to increased bus use, and the Butte system was eliminated entirely because, before Kerr Dam was completed, the whole Butte-Anaconda complex was running out of both money and electricity, and the power was sent to the electrolytic processors, which made money, as opposed to the trolleys, which marginally lost it.(If they had held out for one year, Kerr might have come online.) Anmccaff (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How was this directly impacted by GM?

Chicago North Shore - how is this related to the subject?Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• "(→‎Relevant actors: Removing dubious tag - LAR was owned by NCL, so was certainly affected by them for good or bad or good then bad or whatever)" (PeterEastern)

Ditto. 45 other systems were owned by NCL, and I, and others, have provided a great deal of evidence the NCL infused capital to the electric side, used electric transit more than its predecessor clearly intended to, and that this was also true in other cites, yet it remains singled out on a list that implies it's a poster child for EEvuLL PloTZ!!!, supported by a tendentious book reviewer of no particular standing. Pfaughhhh, I say. Pfaughhh!Anmccaff (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Delaware not, primarily, a screening device, GM involvement doesn't seem to be screened.

The involvement of General Motors and others in these holding companies was not made public at the time. Both National City Lines and Pacific City Lines were incorporated in Delaware, a state which does not require companies to disclose information about directors or shareholders, and which also offers low corporation tax and other incentives to businesses that incorporate there.

References

There's still an ambiguity as to what "this time" means. Articles from "In Transit" and the Montana Standard (The Butte paper) suggest that there was no question of GM's involvement whatsoever from '38 onward, and the whole notion that SEC listed companies incorporate in DE to screen ownership is silly. They are still required to report to the feds to the same degree that they would have had in any other state.Anmccaff (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you would provide links to the articles you refer to. PeterEastern (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It'd be even more helpful if they weren't on the other sides of paywalls at the moment. The "Montana Standard", the Butte paper, had an article on the upcoming replacement of buses. It will occasionally surface free from "newspapers.com" on a google book search on "National City" butte" "trolley" (or streetcar, I forget), and so forth, it brings up a pretty full summation. The other publication, which is "Transit" not "In Transit", if memory serves, was a Carmen's union publication, which, again, you can only see through snippet views. GM was not seen as union-friendly by the Carmen, and they sniffed out connections because of that.

This isn't a call to put something in the article simply because we know it to be true, but can't document it, but rather to be on the alert for documentation. It's also a call-out that "at this time" is so broad as to be meaningless; when is it referring to? Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleveland, Miami, and Minneapolis, with a little DC on the side.

Intermixed with the real minor anti-trust violation; the more rococo, certainly false, conspiracy myths; and the (real, I think) effects of GM's sheer size and integrated financing, there were some stories of criminality, or at least extreme sleaziness, among GM's sales force, and a couple of examples of crooks and financiers -crooks by another name, in these particular cases- whose actions involved GM product. There are plausible accusations of bribery or undue influence in Cleveland and Miami; Minneapolis's system was taken over first by a turn-around artist, and then by out-and-out gangsters; and Washington, D.C.'s system was looted for its cash by the Wolfson brothers, although the system was only converted to bus by the next buyer, who was required by the pols to convert. The different capitalization cycle of PCCs and WWII-era trackless trolleys vs. buses required that electric traction companies had either easy access to capital -which most had not since about 1915- or a "war chest," in effect a sinking fund for equipment and plant replacement. That was why DC and Minneapolis became targets.

GM's name is thrown about unfairly in some of these cases. Some. Anmccaff (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The LA Metro Orange line is not a tram.

Trams run on rails. The LA Metro orange line is a bus. 173.75.242.147 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yupp, that didn't belong there...indeed, the whole section doesn't, the other lines mentioned, like much of the old PE, ran on dedicated ROW whenever practical, and used heavy vehicles, closer to the electric vehicles seen on "steam" roads, not streetcars. Good call. Thanks.Anmccaff (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Sign in, damnit. There's a sockpuppeteer loose here.Anmccaff (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

PPS Tram, schmam. Speak Murrican. "Streetcar." "Trolley." "Trackless trolley." Anmccaff (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Great American Streetcar Scandal" appears to be a Wiki-ism

Used by damned few weighty reliable sources, an obvious anachronism -there was no "scandal" at the time, and a retroactive scandal is a very odd concept - and clearly a misnomer, since bustitution was pretty universal in first-world countries. Anmccaff (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't say whether the scandal was real or not but I think the perception of it being a scandal started outside of wikipedia. For myself, I learnt of it from Edwin Black's 2006 book "Internal Combustion". He had way too much detail to be derived from the 2005/2006 version of this article.  Stepho  talk  10:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did he use the term "Great American Streetcar Scandal" in Internal Combustion? I'm not talking about the concept that GM had a little too much to do with streetcar's supercesion, but the use of this particular phrase. For something covering a matter from the late thirties to, at most, the late '50s, "TGASC" shows up very late in the game; shows up mostly on websites; and shows up too often on websites that borrow phrases directly from various versions of the Wiki article.Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't clear that you were only talking about the name. I've no objection to changing the name - although I might object to particular choices of a new name.  Stepho  talk  06:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I suppose The Wroger Wrabbit Mythos is right out, then. Damn. Anmccaff (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I, too, have looked for TGASC and conclude that it is a wikiism. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, largely a Wiki-ism but not just a Wiki-ism. That said, it's interesting to see that it is also often a translated wiki-ism. The German page appears to be a translation of an older English page, for instance. Anmccaff (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the lead. Does anyone disagree? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. this might be largely a self-inflicted wound, but it's bleeding, so to speak, nonetheless. People use the term now, even if this article was too big a part of popularizing it.Anmccaff (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific phrase seems to have originated in Al Mankoff's 1999 article for North Jersey Transit and Planning Authority's intransition Magazine entitled ["Revisiting the Great American Streetcar Scandal"]. Nowhere in the article is it suggested that the conspiracy was called the Great American Streetcar Scandal when the case took place.--173.27.100.156 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Montreal

In "see also" the Montreal streetcar addition was removed. In 1959 Montreal bought all there buses from GM. This is a financial reason to kill the Montreal electric streetcar trolly that worked successfully for many years during the second world war.http://www.stm.info/en/about/discover_the_stm_its_history/history/bus-history --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

...which details the initial replacement of streetcars with Brill/ACF/CCF products mostly. Anmccaff (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevant actors section

This list is original research and should be removed in its entirety. This list is synthesis. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If someone is relevant they should be mentioned in the body, if they aren't in the body of the article an editor shouldn't personally decide they are nevertheless relevant and include them in an impromptu list in the article.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see where it came from, originally, before it is simply nuked, and see a couple examples from it fleshed out. The UHA is treated in the article as though it came completely out of nowhere rather than from its obvious sources; FDR had a real history against private utility ownership, for example. BTW, could you log in before nuking parts of the article? I agree that the part removed was, frankly, silly, but with a sock puppeteer hanging around here, it's better to keep track of who's w-who, as the Gnu would say. Anmccaff (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted here for discussion rather than removing the "relevant actors" section as this article seems prone to intense editing. By the way, what is UHA? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Intense?" Yeah, that's one way to put it, I suppose. I'm not sure why there's a separate "dramatis personae" section, but I'm also not sure I see that it's "OR" even in the rather narrow sense used here.Anmccaff (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"UHA?" "Utilities Holding Act." Anmccaff (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless there is a ref that lists "relevant actors", then it is merely the opinion of an editor(s) that these particular people/organizations are" relevant in the "conspiracy" story. Presumably the editor(s) have assembled his own definition of "relevant" and done research to determine that these fit that unstated definition. Presumably the editor(s) have also not included others based on this opinion. I suggest that this is synth and original research. The section should be deleted. Participants in this should only be mentioned in the article sections in which they were involved. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

First, Gotta disagree there on a few points. First, editors, not editor. It has to reflect at least two editors; it was here long before I came (back to?) the article. Next, you are begging the question that it is synthesis, in the Wikipedian sense. It isn't joining two separate ideas that is banned, it's forming a new conclusion from or between them that isn't so dead obvious as to be completely unremarkable.(unsigned comment by Anmcaff?)

Good point, changed comment per remark. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The other point is important, too. This isn't synthesis. If the coupling of facts is unremarkable, and would lead almost anyone to the same conclusion, it isn't synthesis in the Wiki-ish sense, unless, say, one of the facts mentioned was obscure, or there was a temporal disconnect, or so forth. Anmccaff (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That said, if someone doesn't come along in a couple of weeks justifying it, yeah, it belongs either incorporated in the body or in the initial summary, or it needs an intro paragraph or sentence explaining what the &@#$$ it's doing there, or it doesn't belong at all. (It looks an awful lot like a writer's aid; like the 3x5 cards you might keep nearby as you type, doesn't it?) Anmccaff (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't put a time limit in or assume my lack of comment is approval for your editing of the article. You have again taken ownership of the article. It is virtually impossible to work around your almost hourly edits. As a whole, though, you are tending back to making conclusions or summations in the wikipedia voice which got us to the dispute we had earlier. I'll repeat my previous suggestions; try to stick to the facts. Secondarily, stick to the facts of reporting published opinions by properly attributed, informed experts. Avoid inserting your own opinion into the article, leading to the ultimate single scenario you profess is the one way to look at these facts. I appreciate the input from Capitalismojo and other less involved editors to try to take an unbiased look at the article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Arborway

(Corrected false info about all Boston surface lines operating on their own right of way. The outer section of the Green E (Heath St.) line does not.)

Oh, Heath st. is running again? Still, that'd be "almost all" more that "most," especially given how frequently it used to get pulled for equipment. Good catch, though. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)