Talk:AMC Gremlin

message: I have some doubts about a couple of things here.  I've never heard of a supercompact.  What would that be?  And I've never seen or heard of a four-door Gremlin.  Thought I'd give a chance for discussion before I did any editing, though.    RivGuySC 18:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also a Halloween special send-up of the old William Shatner Twilight Zone episode where  Shatner keeps seeing a gremlin on the wing of the plane he is travelling on, but the crew and the other passages don't believe him until it's too late.  In the Simpsons version, Bart sees a gremlin busy sabotaging the bus, but when the bus driver looks out the window, the only gremlin he can see is a '73 Gremlin in the next lane, which he proceeds to run off the road. --Jpbrenna 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. For screenshots of that, you can go to www.arcticboy.com and click the picture of the television set. -Litefantastic 14:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gremlin run off by Otto is driven by Hans Moleman but it's the Comic Book Guy's Gremlin that features extra stuff like trash bag windows and bumper stickers. --Kolya (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Supercompact"?

message: The Hornet had a wheelbase of 108 inches, which, by the definition of the Wikipedia article on mid-size cars, is mid-size. Therefore, I reverted the edits that changed mid-size to compact back to mid-size.  Rsduhamel 13:54, 7 April, 2006 (UTC)
::Rsduhamel- I have reverted your edits noted above because passenger volume also is used to determine the size classification of a vehicle. Based on US governmental standards in place in 1970, the Gremlin was most certainly a sub-compact (having been shoe horned into the back seat of a Gremlin as a junior high school student I can attest that the seating area was limited, in the kindest possible terms), and was also most certainly the first U.S. sub-compact built by a major US automaker in the United States since 1960. 
::Secondly, the AMC Hornet, was a compact, not a mid-size car as you indicatedand that has been reverted as well.  That reversion is based upon its size compared to US standards at that time, including interior volume. While the lengths of these cars by todays standards may make them seem mid-sized, I can assure you that when they came out in 1970, both the Hornet and the Gremlin were small cars.
::Also, please sign your talk page posts by type 4 tildas (~~~~) at the end of you post.  This signs the post and time stamps it. Thanks, Stude62 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, since it depends on what standard you subscribe to, it should be clear that the Hornet could be considered mid-size or compact. I noted this in the article. I also tried to clarify the comparison between the Hornet and the Gremlin that I tried to convey when I wrote the original article. Hope I didn't step on any toes. Rsduhamel 06:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compact or mid-size 

message: I've merged content from List of 1971 American Motors automobiles, but since it's a list of specifications sourced from Oct. 1970 Popular Mechanics, I think it's safe to delete the article as long as I provide proper attribution. So here is the article history before I deleted it:
* (cur) (last)  14:38, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved List of 1971 American Motors Automobiles to List of 1971 American Motors automobiles: caps title)
* (cur) (last) 14:30, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved 1971 American Motors Specifications to List of 1971 American Motors Automobiles: OK, no rule against lists of cars, right?)
* (cur) (last) 04:44, 26 June 2006 ApolloBoy (Talk | contribs | block) (This does not qualify for an article)
* (cur) (last) 02:21, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) (Well, excel table is here, u r welcome to clean up html.)
* (cur) (last) 02:02, 26 June 2006 Wiarthurhu (Talk | contribs | block) (Table has data that can be placed in other AMC wiki pages. Pleeeez don't delete it. If you know how to do a table, please do it.)
--Deathphoenix ʕ 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of merged content 

message: In many car related articles, I'm always curious about the origin of the car's name.  It would be great if that kind of info would be available.  I'm not much of a car enthusiast, but I am very curious about the motivation behind many car names, especially AMC cars.  If someone out there has that kind of knowledge I think it would be an interesting bit of information to include in these articles.  --MattWatt (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: This section is stuffed with unreferenced performance claims; also a couple of unreferenced quotes. How long should they remain before they are deleted? They appear totally genuine and they add valuable substance to the article, so hopefully whoever added them can also add the references? Otherwise I propose deletion at the end of June 2008 unless others think it would be reasonable to give them more time. Writegeist (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance section 

message: The considerable quantity of text summarily deleted does not conform to the definitions or parameters set out in the WP:Fancruft essay (not, please note, a WP policy) which is cited, erroneously, as the basis for deletion. Anyone with a solid grasp of English can see this. E.g., from the essay: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Clearly this does not describe the material deleted. Also worthy of note: use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. 
Once again, stretching good faith to the limit, I can only think this erroneous edit has arisen from a misinterpretation of the English language by an editor whose history shows recurrent problems with it, at least where articles about AMC and AMC products are concerned. 
The edit also seems to perpetuate what appears to have become one editor's habitual practice of attempting to suppress any notable, relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced and neutrally presented material that presents an obstacle to the editor's apparently continuing agenda of presenting all AMC products as paragons. 
Numerous times already I have asked for this practice to cease. I don't want to go to WP:ANI but I will if I have to.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising medium for a defunct car manufacturer.
The cut material is notable, V, RS and presented with NPOV. 
I shall revert the unwarranted edit. — Writegeist (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements made above (by an indefinitely blocked user) are in error. Per WP:WPACT, pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. The entire "Media appearances" section is a list of references that had no noticable impact on the design, operation or sales of this model of automobile. There is an external link to the IMCDB  list of AMC Gremlins in movies and TV series. The other media entries included in this section are not contemporary to the car's production and normal operating life. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information such as the note that "The Washington Post reported that in March 2008 CCTV video of a 1974 Gremlin with a racing stripe led police to two suspects—one the distinctive car’s owner—in several shooting incidents in Virginia." Moreover, per WP:NNC, an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details. Therefore, the "Media appearances" section should be removed because it does not meet WP guidelines. CZmarlin (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CZmarlin, my post was not "in error", it was correct: you had removed material which was not covered by the definitions in the essay that you cited, as I explained to you.You now cite a guideline which is altogether unrelated to that essay.  Fair enough. It covers the material in question. Please see your talk page. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fancruft" 

message: Among the experimentals, shouldn't there be a mention of the pickoupe AMC financed but never produced?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  10:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the suggestion. American Motors made prototypes and the idea is described on the AMC Hornet web site and on pages 143-144 of a book about Jeeps. There have also been magazine articles about the development of this model. This is something more to add on the "to do list" with this article! CZmarlin (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gremlin breeding 

message: One contributor thinks it's worthwhile to hammer into readers that the car was "released on April Fool's Day" of 1970, taking great pains to record that twice in the article.  Was that part of the marketing? because I do not see any evidence of same.  If not, then the reference should go and it should be merely pointed out that the car came out on 4/1/70.
71.241.70.24 (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In reviewing the history of the article, the "released on April Fool's Day" phrase was added by Writegeist (User talk:Writegeist) as part of a revision as of 03:57, May 15, 2008 without providing a citation as to the reason that "holiday" should be mentioned within the article. Other than the "official" day of introduction on April 1, American Motors did not have "April Fool's" marketing or mention pertaining to that day. Yes, the phrase "released on April Fool's Day" should be removed.  CZmarlin (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of "April Fool's Day"?

message: Those of us who have driven Gremlins since the 1970s, and still drive them 30+ years later, would say this is an false statement. : ) AMCKen (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The 50 Worst Cars of All Time

message: Beginning with this 2006 edit, the article gave attribution to Dick Teague, based on a book authored by Thomas Hine (author of six books on the 1970s), with this reference. Since then, the article gave unreferenced mention to Bob Nixon.
This was just very recently changed to reflect styling significant attribution to Bob Nixon, based on this reference, a blog entry by Aaron Severson, on 13 October 2007 — on a blog site by Aaaron Severson and credentialed also... by Severson -- in other words without publisher, editorial staff, etc.  It isn't likely this sources meets the requirements here for reliability.  The blog entry does cite an interview with Bob Nixon and a source (http://www.torq-o.com/Podcasts/podcasts.html) which is a dead link and unretrievable at waybackarchive.org.  As it is, the information is unverifiable.
The former reference seems to meet more criteria as a reliable source, but ultimately perhaps there could be more research to vet both stories further.  Perhaps both versions of the story are parts of a whole story, or could be substantiated and included --  especially if a better source could be found to support the Nixon story. 
Could we get some discussion on this and perhaps find some improvements that would serve the reader better and more closely meet WP guidelines for sourcing?  14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one source: Bob Nixon joined AMC as a 23-year-old did first formal Gremlin car sketch in 1967 in The Cars of American Motors: An Illustrated History by Marc Cranswick. CZmarlin (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styling Bob Nixon and/or Dick Teague 

message: According to the Kammback article, a Kammback design should have the flat surface roughly 50% of the maximum vertical cross section of the vehicle, and that many vehicles with flat rear ends are often called Kammback's in spite of not really being one. Is that not the case here? In this case the rear flat area is about 90% of the cross sectional area of the vehicle, and is tilted the wrong way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. Roughly 50% is correct as a defining aspect, and according to Karl Ludvigsen a Kamm tail has a flat vertical surface. The Kamm references should be removed from the article. Writegeist (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really a Kammback? 

message: Content was added to the article indicating that the Gremlin has been included in several lists of the "worst cars ever made." These statements were sourced from the Globe and Mail, Canada's major national newspaper and Time magazine. Another editor reverted these additions, calling them POV. I think POV would be cherrypicking negative comments about the Gremlin from longer articles, or picking a little-known, obscure magazine that criticized the Gremlin. In my case, though, I have found two well-known, mainstream Reliable Sources that call the Gremlin one of the worst cars ever made. The reverting editor said that the Globe and Mail and Time content is editorializing. 
It is true that WP editors cannot editorialize when they add content (e.g., by adding their own views/opinions to the content), but if a writer published in a RS editorializes--that is makes critical comments about a certain subject, then it can be included. Take for example film articles, which typically include critical comments from movie reviewers, including critics praising the film as the "best film of the year" and other reviewers calling the film the "worst film of the year," with rationales. I feel that the reverting editor does not wish to have negative comments about the Gremlin appear in the WP article, even though they come from a reliable source. I also take issue with the reverting editor's view in his/her edit summary that these Globe and Mail and Time critiques were made 40 years after the fact. The reviews of any product or item may change over time. A film that is considered a great film at the time of its creation (e.g., Breakfast at Tiffany's) may be considered to have problematic elements by 2015 critics (e.g., the racially-stereotyped depiction of a Japanese character by Mickey Rooney).
Added content that was reverted:
*The Gremlin has been placed on various lists of the "worst cars ever made." In a Time magazine article on the 50 worst cars of all time, the 1970 Gremlin was called the "...most curiously proportioned cars ever, with a long low snout, long front overhang and a truncated tail, like the tail snapped off a salamander. Cheap and incredibly deprived — with vacuum-operated windshield wipers, no less — the Gremlin was also awful to drive, with a heavy six-cylinder motor and choppy, unhappy handling due to the loss of suspension travel in the back."http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657865,00.html 
 
*In a Globe and Mail article on the 12 worst cars, the Gremlin is called the "...beginning of the end for the American Motors corporation." The article states that the "...Gremlin is generally agreed upon as the worst [AMC car] of them all, a small, rust-prone car that guzzled fuel like a vehicle several times its size. The Gremlin's handling was atrocious, its engine was crippled by emissions control equipment, and the flip-up back window was prone to breaking off in a driver's hands. But the Gremlin's worst feature was its egregious styling..."http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/the-12-worst-cars-ever-built/article4392663/?page=all
OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear OnBeyondZebrax, Although you have provided two cites that make claims about the AMC Gremlin, they are both editorializing about a car 40 years after its success on the marketplace. In both cases, these sources provide no data or credible evidence about the car to support their opinions. Rather, they are random musings together with sweeping generalizations that are lame attempts at humor. One is a mass-market publication and the other a newspaper, neither representing dedicated automotive-related media. Thanks CZmarlin (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear CZmarlin, the Time article on the 50 worst cars is by "Dan Neil, Pulitzer Prize-winning automotive critic and syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times." As required in WP:RS this means the author is a reliable source of information on automotive issues and the publisher (Time magazine) is a reliable publisher. There is no WP rule, to my knowledge, that Reliable Sources for automotive articles can only include automotive-related media. Just because a product has tremendous success in the marketplace, this does not mean that it will obtain positive critical reviews at the time--or 40 years later. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear OnBeyondZebrax, the point is not to argue about the credentials of the author of one of these list of so-called "worst" cars. First of all, where does the author provide any objective criteria for including the cars on their list? The brief explanations for each car represents an attempt at journalistic humor, not any reasoned and documented reporting of the facts. Their contribution contains only personal opinions and sweeping generalizations about the car and even its buyers. For example, not liking the Gremlin's unconventional styling is hardly an objective basis to include the car on this list. Moreover, historic facts cannot be invalidated in hindsight simply because the Gremlin did not conform to the critic's assumptions about what an economy car should have been 40 years after it was made. In other words, addressing a particular car's legacy in an encyclopedic Wikipedia article should be based on tangible aspects and measures. Therefore, such attempts at rewriting a well-documented history of a particular car are not in accordance with encyclopedia article neutral point of view guidelines. CZmarlin (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear CZmarlin, I have a few comments:
* The credentials of the author are pertinent. WP:RS says that the reliability of the author are part of what makes a source a "Reliable Source."
*To my knowledge, WP policies do not require that authors who are deemed to be a reliable source on a subject who are publishing their views in a publication deemed a reliable source (e.g., Time, The New York Times, Washington Post etc.) provide objective criteria for criticizing a car, book or computer. If John Doe is a leading, recognized computer expert and he publishes an article in The New York Times in which he calls company XYZ's newest laptop "the worst performing laptop of 2015," then this opinion, properly attributed to Doe and properly referenced, can appear in the Wikipedia article on the XYZ laptop computer.
* Based on the same premises as number 2, if John Doe is a leading, recognized computer expert and he publishes an article in The New York Times in which he calls company XYZ's newest laptop "an aesthetic disaster," (referring to its' styling and appearance) then this subjective opinion, properly attributed to Doe and properly referenced, can appear in the Wikipedia article on the XYZ laptop computer.
* Historical facts can be reinterpreted by different generations. To just give one example from my country, the Manitoba politician Louis Riel was hanged as a traitor in the 19th century but as of 2015, many historians consider him a founding father of Canada.
* The WP:NPOV policy is complex and has many subparagraphs, and I am not trying to cherrypick selected sentences. But a few quotes are of interest to me. The core principles are set out in the lede: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." Regarding the issue of a source being biased, the NPOV policy tells us that "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference.  The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased.  Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid.  Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view."OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear CZmarlin, you may wish to see the Featured article on Macintosh Classic. In the "Reception" section of this article, several reviewers' praise and criticism of the Mac Classic are included. This shows that including praise and criticism is done in a Featured article.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gremlin on list of 12 worst cars in Globe and Mail and 50 worst cars in TIME 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529041905/http://membres.multimania.fr/pacer/mexeng.htm to http://membres.multimania.fr/pacer/mexeng.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AMC Gremlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gremlinx.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83%3Arandall-401-xr-gremlin&catid=37%3Aarticle-archive&Itemid=152
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724052705/http://www.salguod.net/weblog/archive/2009/02/the_little_car_that_could.shtml to http://www.salguod.net/weblog/archive/2009/02/the_little_car_that_could.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Gremlins appeared in Cars 2 among the "lemons". Which is a car that doesn't work right. Booger-mike (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture depictions