Talk:BorgWarner

message: Not a very good article, so it should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggoere (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete request 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20191224040324/https://www.borgwarner.com/company/history/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This article was trashed on 11 February 2021 by an IP who overwrote it with promotional and/or copyvio content, very probably also violating the Terms of use by editing for pay without disclosure. That material has now been pretty much entirely removed, but that leaves the page a poor stub. It looks to me as if some material from , at least in the history section, might be useable if anyone's interested. NB I have not checked it for copyright compliance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring earlier content 

message: Hi Ptrnext,
Thank you for the explanations regarding potential conflicts in my edits. I believe that articles should comply with Wikipedia's content policies and edits should not be promotional. Therefore, I would like to demonstrate why my proposed change is vital in providing a coherent perspective on the subject. I would kindly ask to take this into consideration.
Firstly, the current version highly relies on sources directly influenced by BorgWarner, whereas my revised version tries and offers a varied set of independent sources to present a holistic encyclopedic perspective on the matter. The revised version provides 32 sources instead of 13. If there are any problems with the sources cited, please give me feedback so I can look into those again.
Secondly, an overarching issue of the article is the lack of content. For a company that was founded over a hundred years ago and is one of the 25 largest automotive suppliers in the world, there is only a total of 11 events described in the History section. Out of these 11 events, two are only indirectly linked to the development of the company and rather deal with spin-offs. Another event is related to social engagement and does not give insights into the company's development whatsoever (SOS Children's Villages). The lack is also substantially reflected in the sources that accompany the business records. Only one proper source is provided to sustain verifiability for all actual business-related developments between 1928 and 2022, which reflects the valid criticism of poor quality attributed to the overall article. Adding solidified content can only help in preventing any promotional attempt in the matter.
This leads to the point of misrepresentation of the company as of now. For instance, technically, the merger in 1928 was a transfer of business to BorgWarner. The company Morse Equalizing Spring was one of the transferring legal entities in accordance with the merger agreement. The year of foundation, according to Wikipedia, is the year of the oldest legal predecessor. Thus, the founding date of BorgWarner should be 1880 rather than 1928. Further, the lack of content in the history section leads to a lack of proper presentation of the company's present activities. The latest spin-off led to a drastic restructuring of the business divisions, outsourcing the fuel injection and aftermarket section to Phinia. Further, the revoked version does not explain former splits properly, leaving the reader with more questions than answers. So, the lack of content in the history section enables a misconception of BorgWarner's operations in the past and present as well as opening new questions. If possible, could you maybe point out where I deviated from the attempt to fill in the gap, which clearly needs to be closed for the coherent description of the business records?
Thirdly, the above-mentioned points reveal the necessity to specify BorgWarner's business activities. The current version of the article doesn't sufficiently explain, what BorgWarner's business actually is, except dealing with the automotive sector (even if that is not entirely the case anymore, as shown). Chapters on corporate structure are widely used in Wikipedia and are of great relevance. However, in order to avoid any promotional content, only the essential figures, data and facts have been presented and substantiated so that the reader knows what kind of company BorgWarner is. It is necessary to present the business areas of BorgWarner and to go into these briefly, otherwise operations are not conveyed properly. The automotive sector is a broad field and so far, it is not specified what BorgWarner does in this regard. Adding a section to explain this offers clarity to the reader. In addition, a paragraph on Social Engagement structures information such as the involvement in SOS Children's Village separately from the History section.
Therefore, I believe it's best to revert the article back to the revised version I have provided. If there's any good reason, with a reference to a relevant issue, why the revised version is not an improvement, please discuss on the talk page. Best regards, --Penavaanna (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Penavaanna You are supposed to make an edit request by using the  template as indicated on your talk page. Since you restored your COI edit, I have added the  template to the article. Ptrnext (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2023