Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser (J70)

Several errors and omissions make this page quite misleading. Several of the reasons for the modifications I'm making:

This page is about the 70 Series, which includes models such as the 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, ... When info applies only to one particular body type, I'm making that clear.
This page is not limited to any particular engine. So, for example, the info box shouldn't say FJ70. FJ refers to the old 3F gasoline engine.
Several bits of info are country/region specific, and need to be generalized.
In general, if you don't like what I've changed, talk to me about it before you change it back, because I'm only making changes for which I have relatively good reason.
Oh ya, and I'm taking out some POV material, like "most appropriate."

Danny Reese (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagon vs SUV

You may have noticed myself and User:Seqqis reverting each other over whether the 70 series is a station wagon or a SUV. To my mind, an SUV has the size and stance of a traditional 4WD, drives/handles like a passenger car, has many creature comforts (nice stereo, nice carpets, plush velour seats, etc) and is typically driven by yuppies and soccer moms. Whereas the 70 series has always been a workhorse, typically has vinyl floormats instead of carpet (so it can be hosed out), plain vinyl seats on most grades and is not the type of car you'd get for the wife to drive the kids to school in. I've never heard of Toyota calling it an SUV but here's a reference for Toyota calling it a wagon (and cab chassis and troop carrier for other body styles). Comments? Stepho talk 05:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"SUV" is unhelpful. If we really have to put it in a pigeonhole, why not just call it a 4x4? bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately 4x4 won't cut it either because we need to distinguish body styles like troop carrier, 2-door and 4-door pick-up, 3-door and 4-door SUV/wagon. Also 4x4 can be anything from a Toyota Tercel, to a Subaru WRX up to a Dodge Power Wagon. Stepho talk 22:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to distinguish each body style? It's just an infobox. If we can't make the point clearly & neutrally in a single word, then evidently the infobox is not a good place to pigeonhole it, and we could - if we wanted - describe the body style in prose in the body of the article. bobrayner (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is no more than that - a gut feeling. Nonetheless, here it is: Toyota called it a station wagon, and as such it helped originate and define the SUV genre. I could justify both uses, but I agree with Bob Rayner that these sorts of arguments are usually not worth the effort. Infertile and a waste of time. But I have been wrong before. Mr.choppers | ✎ 08:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engines

The infobox does not have engines listed in it. I wonder who decided to remove that important section. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the history and I couldn't find any time that the infobox listed engines. Covering from 1984 to the present might be a bit hard but it would still be nice to see them. Stepho talk 11:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is supposed to cover engines as it does at the J40 Land Cruiser's page. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HZJ75

The request for a reference for the HZJ75 took me all of 30 seconds to find: https://www.fj.co/detail/1992-Land-Cruiser-HZJ75_345 I'm just not sure where to put it in the article. Stepho talk 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stepho-wrs. And here's another reference: https://bringatrailer.com/2017/02/19/in-oregon-for-25k-1990-toyota-land-cruiser-hzj75-pick-up/. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a trailer is a buying selling website that cannot be a reliable source. I'd prefer Stepho's reference. If you had added the source in the first place 1292simon instead of labeling the edit as factual, your edits wouldn't be undone. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's best if all facts have a reference. But if it doesn't then there are two options:

If it is very, very, blantantly wrong then delete it. Eg, vandalism.
If it looks plausible then mark it with {{cn}}. If nobody adds a reference after a suitable period of time, then you can delete it. Stepho talk 07:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so 1292simon was in the wrong here by undoing edits because they were "factual" instead of adding a source. Wikipedia works by verifiable facts. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro, that is not correct. A couple of questions for you: Would you like to apologise to 120.29.66.23 for reverting what has now been found to be a constructive edit? Which Wiki policy supports your above claim that a website which also sells products cannot be considered a WP:RS? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't apologise and neither you have any right to order me to do so 1292simon because the edit of the IP was not sourced. You can keep your sympathy to yourself about that. Maybe give the policy you mentioned a read and then you can see for yourself. FYI, here is an excerpt:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). I don't think bring a trailer covers that.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping that you might take the opportunity to make a WP:CIVIL gesture, but sadly it seems not.
That extract does not support the argument that commercial websites can't be considered WP:RS, can you identify any others that do? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has nothing to do with what the IP did, it is about you calling the edit of the IP factual and finding sources for such "factual" edit. So don't drift off the point. I have been Civil in this discussion which does not concern that IP. If you want to sympathise to IPs, you can do that on your own namespace. Now you're taking this discussion to somewhere else by saying that bring a trailer can be used as a reliable source. No it cannot be used as a reliable source.

Here is another excerpt to counter in whatever you have interpreted from WP:RS

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Taking that into consideration, a buying selling website does not fit in this criteria.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this excerpt supports your argument. It seems we are going around in circles here, so I have requested a WP:3O. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K dude. If you obtain a consensus there you can come back and use this source. The correct forum to use was WP:RSN. But sure, whatever fits your bill.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can find your answer at WP:RSN 1292simon and maybe next time read the policies carefully before claiming you're right. The consensus is very strong against whatever you say about bring a trailer. Hopefully you'd come up with reasoning next time before pointing fingers at other editors. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: The question seems to boil down to whether or not bringatrailer.com is a reliable source. The linked source appears to be a post on the Bring A Trailer website, which is highlighting a vehicle which has been listed for sale. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability and the relevant content guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The verifiability policy states, in part, "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". Bring A Trailer is clearly (1) self-published (if not user-generated) and (2) not a reliable, independent publication. Essentially, it appears that anyone could go onto that website and post whatever they like. Therefore, my view is that bringatrailer.com is not a reliable source, and should not be used in the article. I hope this is helpful. -- Jack Frost (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack Frost for your help here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota war 2008

Can someone add a mention in the history 2600:6C55:7600:3523:4435:440B:91FA:E2AC (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Toyota Land Cruiser#Use by militant groups and military forces. Stepho talk 03:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Toyota Land Cruiser pre-Faclift interior.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Land Cruiser 70 in Australian Passport

There's a Land Cruiser 79 towing a caravan on page 28 of a P Series Australian passport 202.161.64.32 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundera?

It appears that the J70 is known as the Bundera in Australia and Indonesia, possibly elsewhere. A cursory search gives me nothing useful to reference, however - everything I read makes it seem a nickname. Perhaps I need to fire up the VPN, or maybe some other editors know more (looking at you, Stepho-wrs). Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bundera is a little out of my usual stuff but I have vague memories from the 1980s of the lightweight, shorty Bundera. More used by farmers and hobbyists where you only needed to get 1 or 2 people somewhere but not required to carry lots of equipment. Found the following sites:

Had a short wheel base and engines found in passenger cars (eg 2.4-litre 22R petrol and 2.4-litre 2L-T turbo-diesel) instead of the stronger/heavier engines in the normal J70 (eg 3F petrol and 3.4-litre 3B diesel and 4.2-litre 1HZ diesel). Reasonable sure that it is the proper name used in Toyota advertising for the shorty but I don't have proof of that yet. Stepho talk 23:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a brochure: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/266286178286?hash=item3dffe49fee:g:ZKIAAOSwK6VkfZEt Stepho talk 23:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you Stepho-wrs. Judging by the brochure the car was called Land Cruiser, with "Bundera" being a variant ("Bundera and Mid-Wheelbase"), which suggests that "Toyota Bundera" is incorrect as an AKA. I did find this picture with delightful wrestler The Iron Sheik; but the car and the plate still just say "Land Cruiser." If there was a Bundera badge on it somewhere I'd be more comfortable. Thoughts? Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Looks like the Bundera was always part of the Land Cruiser line - as shown by this press release: https://toyota.pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?clientID=2&navSectionID=6&categoryID=1000&kitID=237

This press release https://www.toyota.com.au/news/toyota-marks-landcruiser-70-birthday-in-style also mentions Bundera in the same way that it mentions the Prado. Since Prado is known to be shorthand for Toyota Land Cruiser Prado, we can take Bundera to also be shorthand for Land Cruiser Bundera. Similarly, dealers often talked about the Toyota Seca when they really meant Toyota Corolla Seca. When a particular grade is only available on one prodyct line. The Americans did this too in the 1970s with the SR5 - treating it as a full model name instead of as a grade of the Toyota Pickup (aka Hilux) and even though other markets used the SR5 grade on other product lines such as the Corolla.

This private ad shows pics with Toyota Landcruiser badges and "Bundera" decals on the B pillars (there is a single close up pic of the decal). https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/1985-toyota-landcruiser-bundera-lx-manual-4x4/SSE-AD-13016076/?Cr=0

In many ways it parallels both the Prado and the Sahara by being part of the Land Cruiser line but by being referenced to by its grade only.

There is a Bundera Facebook page that may provide more help. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607517262807643/ Stepho talk 09:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]