Talk:Automotive safety

message: We have here a long article that will get longer as its gaps are filled in and its scope is expanded. If we're not careful to keep focused on the topic of auto safety, the article will get diluted with material that belongs in Car accident, Road safety, Speed limit, or other articles. At best, this will mean reduplicated effort. At worst, the quality of all affected articles will be degraded. With an eye towards keeping these articles on their related but individual development paths, I have removed a couple of sentences that are better covered in Car accident, and have moved the assertion related to driving with the flow of traffic, together with its Solomon Curve link, to the relevant section of Car accident. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  It seemed to fit with the sentences you removed, but you're right that they all are better covered in Car accident.  Thanks.--Ludasaphire (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Solomon curve & crash causes

message: A graph showing fatality rates in various countries over the last few decades would help explain the data, rather than only a few numbers scattered in tables and prose. -- Beland (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. We've got a supported table like that here; perhaps that table could be placed—reference and all—here in this article, and supplemented and/or expanded with additional sources of info. —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a diagram to illustrate the table - if this is insufficient then put the  link back in again. Egmason (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical graph 

message: There appear to be some good resources in these two sections. Per WP:EL and WP:CS it's better if they're provided as actual references supporting assertions in the article, not just a list at the end of the article. We ought to look through 'em, get rid of those that are superfluous and/or spurious, and incorporate the valuable ones as references to the maximum practicable degree. —Scheinwerfermann T·C15:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources" and "External links" sections 

message: Is it just me, or do all the safety tests give useless data? "Insurance losses by make and model" gives what insurance companies actually have to pay out for injuries. The safest vehicles here do not match the safest vehicles in crash test ratings - so cars optimized for the ratings may be much more dangerous than those with bad ratings but good real results.
Look at actual medical losses for 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid which has a combined very low test score - "CONCERN: Worst 10% for 2011-12". Now look at real-world insurance losses Ford Escape Hybrid does much better on personal injury than the vast majority of vehicles, the exact opposite of what the safety tests would have you believe.
How many people are being injured or killed due to buying vehicles they researched and thought "safe"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.253.116 (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a name? Have you checked other sources? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE  18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tests vs Reality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Automobile safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dps.state.mn.us/trafsafe/beltsairbags/pregnacy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070417000447/http://www.gs.gov.nl.ca:80/gs/mr/dl-graduated-driver.stm to http://www.gs.gov.nl.ca/gs/mr/dl-graduated-driver.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Automobile safety. 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.aesvn.org/resources/new-car-safety.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713063955/http://www.ismykiddrivingsafe.com/ to http://www.ismykiddrivingsafe.com
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110911185842/http://www.carefulteendriver.com/ to http://www.carefulteendriver.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , rather than just tagging older article content, why not try to find supporting links?  If your intent is to HELP the article finding supporting information is far more productive than just tagging every non-controversial fact.  This comes across revenge tagging. Springee (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent CN tags 

message: A history section is appropriate in any article whose subject is not history itself but includes history. More specifically, this subject is of interest to our WP:WikiProject Medicine, which includes some style guidelines WP:MEDMOS, which recommends a "History" section. Twice in the last two days a section tag "off-topic" has been added to the Automobile_safety#History section. What is the basis in policy or guideline for tagging the history section of this article as off-topic? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, your Coatracking edits.  That looks to everyone else like a header paragraph to a list of short summarized points regarding technology, public acceptance, or law.  Short. Focused. Universal.  We see instead something that is verbose, tendentious, and parochial. Anmccaff (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What coat-racking edits? Anyway please under what policy or guideline is an "off-topic" section tag an appropriate response to perceived coat-racking? Hugh (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

text: , kindly elaborate on how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the section.  Look at the sweep of it: nearly 300 years.  Look at areas covered: nearly everywhere but Antarctica.  Look at the fact that a fifth of it is dedicated to burning incense at the Shrine of St Ralph the Nadered.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment, it helps focus. Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not to decades. In any case the 1960s were a significant decade. We will look forward to your contributions of new sources and improved coverage of other decades. This article is very poorly sourced, but even so it seems odd to make one of the most rigorously sourced paragraphs a target for an undue weight exclusion campaign. Please replace the section hat with an in-text relevance template after our article's contended paragraph. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Hugh, please discuss your proposed changes with the group BEFORE making them.  We are past the time to be WP:BOLD.  Please don't be [WP:RECKLESS]. Springee (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not a "history" section would be off topic, a Nader section is off-topic.  The "off-topic" tag refers to content, not to headers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I see Hugh moved some paragraphs from other sections into the History section, after the tag was added.  Those paragraphs are on-topic in "History", but IMO, fit better where they were before.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , Ralph Nader is off-topic in the History section of our project's article on Automobile safety? Really? What is the due weight of Ralph Nader and and his book Unsafe at Any Speed and his congressional testimony in the History section of our project's article on Automobile safety? Respectfully, a reminder, coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources; beyond proportionality, we have vast noteworthy reliable sources specifically stating a key role for Ralph Nader and and his book Unsafe at Any Speed and his congressional testimony in the passage of the first major automobile safety law. Please, how would you summarize the sources listed in the previous thread above? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, off topic because this article is avoiding the politics associated with various safety features, tests, laws and regulations.  Springee (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of automobile safety off-topic in article "Automobile safety"? 

message: Please do not section blank without consensus. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh, there was no "section blanking".  The only material removed was the disputed Nader related material.  The rollback was discussed above and supported.  The rollback came about because a series of BOLD changes were rejected by consensus.  Springee (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "Nader material", I'd add, might even be a proper part of this, on a very, very, very reduced scale. A sentence or two, a reference or two.  Not War and Peace" followed by a dozen footnotes.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By your participation in our community you agree to abide by our project's policies which include "don't delete salvageable text" WP:DR. Kindly self-revert your deletion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming that your text is salvageable, I'd suggest it is so far gone that any minor reintroduction would be more straightforward from scratch.  Your constant ad hominem poisoning of the well, asserting without evidence that others are breaking "our project's policies," comes across as smarmy passive aggression, at least to my ears.  Anmccaff (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  removed nine (9) noteworthy relevant reliable sources from our article; please suggest a summarization of those sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Hugh.  My recent rollback, discussed at length with considerable consensus, removed material which was widely seen as tendentious, misdirected, and overcited.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section blanking of "History" section 

message: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/05/09/how-the-corvairs-rise-and-fall-changed-america-forever/
This piece summarizes some of the disagreements with Nadrocentric model of the universe. HughD, if you can show signs that you understand some of the concepts there, it will make for some common ground and actual collaboration.  By this I do not mean that I'd expect you to agree, but only to acknowledge there's an entire part of the population, often far more expert than Ralph's Krew on automotive subjects, who disagree fundamentally about many of the ideas you take as given.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The due weight of Ralph Nader, his book Unsafe at Any Speed, and his congressional testimony in the history of automobile is not none. Your deletion of relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources is unjustified. Kindly self-revert. We are asked not to edit article space to attempt to teach an editor a lesson. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing several issues.  The reversion in question was proposed and supported with consensus.  Rather than respecting consensus you engaged in edit warring by reverting the consensus.  You then created a disingenuous "section blanking" argument for your reversion.  The issue is not that Nader's book can not be in this article.  The first issue was how you were WP:PUSHing some material into a section where it didn't fit.  The second issue was that, despite being asked to discuss your planned changes, you proceeded to restructure the article in a way that the group did not support, hence a roll back.  Anmccaff's actions were entirely appropriate in this case.  Springee (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:    Either take that back, or take it to ANI, where it will lead to a boomerang.  That is, simple and plainly, mendaciously poisoning the well.   Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, , are you withdrawing that, or is it time to visit one of Wiki's fine AN boards?  Anmccaff (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: , thank you for bringing a potential new source to article talk. You may wish to propose article content summarizing the source. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Replies like this are TEND.  They ignore the concern(s) of the editor and falsely portray the intended meaning of said editor.  Springee (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Ingrassia]] 

message: That looks very much like an untruth, .  There's extensive discussion by others before you again tendentiously added this material.  You do not appear to have effectively participated in the discussion, perhaps, but there's little anyone else but you can do about that.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No response from you, , just a request to place the same information elsewhere.  Let us know when you can address this, please.  Anmccaff (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: That looks like edit-warring, HughD

message: Contended content:
On September 9, 1966 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the first mandatory federal safety standards for motor vehicles.
Sources:
* 
* 
* 
* 
What is the basis in policy or guideline for removing this relevant content and multiple noteworthy reliable sources? Hugh (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis has been mentioned so many times above that this calls into question something; whether it is competence or ethics I'll leave to others to decide for themselves.   Given the scope of the article, adding 5% about a single person's possibly unproductive actions is uncalled for.  Anmccaff (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel the content you deleted features President Lyndon B. Johnson too prominently? Hugh (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  Look at every other item listed.  Bare-bones and a link.  More importantly, though, the selected, over-cited references are pure WP:Coatrack.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is perhaps the most noteworthy automotive safety regulation in US history, if not the world. Why did you delete instead of correct? How would you summarize the sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: "Bare-bones" Please I would like to learn more about this approach to encyclopedia article writing you mention, can you kindly direct me to policy or guideline where I can catch up to you? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: "Look at every other item" Is this a list article or a prose article? This article is so poor, in terms of neutrality and sourcing, among other issues, that defending your deletions of neutral, relevant, well-sourced content through reference to the rest of the article as a template is an extremely weak argument. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: "over-cited" May I ask, do I understand you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague, including all four new sources, because you felt it was over-cited? Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: "WP:Coatrack" Sorry, I'm confused. Please explain how you feel WP:COATRACK applies here in justifying your deletion of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, unanswered by you, some do not think this is relevant, and your predilection for finding sources that highlight Mr. Nader is uncanny. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that your disdain for Ralph Nader is so intense that, as a Wikipedia editor, you cannot accept any mention of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and you cannot accept any source that mentions Ralph Nader? If so, you might need to back away from this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I am confused by your strenuous objection to mention of Lyndon B. Johnson, sufficient to delete a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Other individuals mentioned by name in this article include  Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, Georges Ageon, Mary Ward, Claire L. Straith, C. J. Strickland, and Hugh DeHaven. Is the role of human agency limited in this article by policy or guideline? Hugh (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You find it odd that the person who some see as inventing both the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle accident is mentioned here?  You find the mention of, arguable, the first motor vehicle fatality odd?  The first person to do serious research on crash-friendly auto design?  The guy who invented the first user-friendly lap-and-shoulder belt?  Nope, they fit here...but every single piece of legislation was signed into law by somebody, and it appears the only one mentioned is there mostly to put Nader's name in the footnotes. Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you deleted a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague because it gave undue weight to US President Lyndon B. Johnson, why did you not consider simply striking US President Lyndon B. Johnson? Why excise the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from our history of automobile safety? Hugh (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

text: As per WP:ES please use an dummy edit to provide an edit summary for  today, without edit summaries, of a neutral, relevant, well-sourced contribution from a colleague. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , are you claiming to be unable to understand the reasons for this revert very thoroughly mentioned above? I'd say "discussed", but I can see little, if any, evidence of your participation in a discussion.  Anmccaff (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  Springee, elsewhere you have admonished Hugh not to impute motives to others and you call his doing so a "personal attack" and yet here i find you doing that in a much worse way than you allege Hugh did in the other context. Please take a look at yourself and lighten up with your accusations about other people's motives, and your accusations that other people are imputing motives to others... it's all too much. Let's speak with respect and common sense with each other, please. You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't say that when others do it, it's wrong, and then turn around and do it yourself. I suggest speaking to the content and not the motives of others. SageRad (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Automobile safety. 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/20080311122721/http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_mary_ward.php to http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/scientists/sci_mary_ward.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023724/http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html to http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023724/http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html to http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile/1974_Oldsmobile_Air_Cushion_Folder/1974%20Oldsmobile%20Air%20Cushion%20Folder-06-07.html
*Added  tag to https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspx
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) 06:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Automobile safety. 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/20080416231439/http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/vehicules/homolo/cnrv/histoire.htm to http://www.ile-de-france.drire.gouv.fr/vehicules/homolo/cnrv/histoire.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Tucker/album/album/1948%20Tucker-04.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309072906/http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf to http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
*Added  tag to https://secure.srgint.com/home.aspx
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) 09:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified