Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy

message: I’d have to disagree that Coachbuilt.com is not a reliable source for the purposes it is used here for, . It’s self-published only in the sense that, say, Stephen King is. I think a look at the history of how and why it was tagged might be useful. Qwirkle (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I checked the site, it has none of the indicia of reliability. I didn't find any About page, editorial policy, list of contributors and credentials. It welcomes user submissions. Feel free to show me the evidence of authority, I am not looking to find hills to die on, but I don't see reliability here, so if you do, maybe you can help me out. Guy (help!) 11:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree that it needs a little digging to figure out responsibility-a simple masthead would be nice, but Mark Theobald is the editor throughout. While it “accepts submissions” from damn near anybody, it publishes them as they are vetted, and points out that It may be a number of days, weeks or even months before the builder is updated with the new information. Theobald is a member of the Society of Automotive Historians, and was recognized by them at least once. It’s not a bad site, overall.Now, it’s run by a car nut by avocation and profession, endorsed by the same, and it’d be a little chancy to use for some aspects of a subject that was literally front-and-center in the War on Cars, but its a damned good convenience cite for other aspects. The opposition to it here, you will note, was driven by POV-pushing IP socks. Qwirkle (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  , Thanks, that's a helpful analysis. I do not object to this source and removal of the  tag based on the above. Guy (help!) 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . Would you mind self-reverting to the status quo ante? There Be Trolls in these woods, and I expect some sock would drag me off to WP:ANEW if I were to do that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coachbuilt 

message: A recent edit to this page that set up automatic archiving was reverted. Automatic-archiving is a concept that is instituted or not instituted according to local consensus but keeping outdated/stale content on this page (over 3 years old) and that hasn't had a response in years doesn't serve the interests of the article or of Wikipedia. The last time content was manually archived was over 3 years ago. So, yeah...this page needs to be archived. And I'm doing that. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I’d disagree. These may not be ongoing discussions, but they reflect the ongoing disputes. Qwirkle (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert... 

message: the opening line of the article is "The notion of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged" when it should read "The reality of a General Motors streetcar conspiracy emerged"
Anyone disagree?  The reality is that GM and the other major car makers were involved in a criminal conspiracy to ruin mass transit in the USA. 82.10.140.18 (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the entire article to answer your question. There were plenty of factors besides GM that led to the demise of trolley cars. Indyguy (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they are other factors doesn't mean this one wasn't influential. --Ostream (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

text: It's hard to sustain the purchase of a fraction of trolley systems by motor vehicle concerns as even a minor cause of the decline of the large majority of trolley systems, which were not purchased by NCL. Trolleys were viable in the period between the creation of the Traction motor with the combination of sufficient torque and light weight, until the combination of the Good Roads Movement, availability of gas stations for repair and refueling, and capable gas powered vehicles. After that time, trolleys became a novelty form of transit, e.g. San Francisco, New Orleans, and Portland. RussNelson (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line issues 

message: This source is both widely factually discredited, and already referenced in the main body. Shouldn’t be in further reading if it’s already in the text...and we really shouldn’t link to inaccurate sources without commentary. Qwirkle (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , seems fair. Guy (help!) 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of “further reading” 

message: This recent edit adds two excellent citations that should be added to the article. The content added to the lead does not appear to be supported by the citations or the body of the article. The lead is a summary of the article so the content goes there first. In the lead, this gives undue emphasis to these two particular explanations that jumped to the head of the line over the explanations provided in the article. Fettlemap (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. That makes sense; I’d agree that the statement is a little strong for the lead, and maybe draws more of a conclusion than the cites alone would justify. Nuke it. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  that said, I think you will see that several excellent references already in the article, or referenced by it - Bianco, Post, Cudahy, Hilton, Richmond, Bottles, and Adler, e.g. all do adress the folkloric espect of the story. In other words, removal from the lead is justified not by the underlying facts, but by the state of the article. Qwirkle (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  highly exaggerated or based on a [[correlation does not imply causation|correlation-equals-causation]] fallacy. 

message: In this edit I did a considerable amount of unintended damage. All I intended to do was add a photo. I have reverted the damage, but in the process also undid your edit because I couldn't untangle the two. My apologies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintended damage 

message: — Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

message: There was a book and documentary discussing this subject, but it seems to have disappeared or I misremembered it. At any rate, there's no link to it here.  2405:9800:B910:DB49:6C81:5BEE:7198:B65D (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Who Killed the…?” 

message: I am surprised to read the term "urban legend" used in this article. The conviction of the companies, and the result of their actions would hardly constitute an urban legend. This is an important and nationally impacting effort which changed the face of transportation in numerous American cities. Should this phrase, which implies the topic of the entry is, itself, false be altered? 2600:1700:22F0:59EF:4F3:7347:708B:6426 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Urban Legend"?