Talk:Edsel

message: Can someone check on the copyright status and editing of this edit?  It's massive and good, which usually indicates a copyvio, but I couldn't locate it on the web...  --SFoskett 15:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm reverting it. Besides the copyvio possibility, the anon. ed. jettisoned a lot of previous work. There's info that can be included, but a new anon should not be making massive deletions. Pollinator 01:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::What's a copyvio? 66.120.86.154 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 04:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: copyedit

message: My rationale for removing the references for the following two references within the Edsel article are listed here, and if either of these two references are near and dear to your hearts I hope that you will read through my reasoning: 
1) Betamax - while Betamax didn't win the battle over which form of video tape recorders won domination (VHS) in the marketplace as the standard in the industry, Betamax did provide superior playback capabilities, and was a strong contender in its early years.  If anything, Betamax was a victim of Sony's tight control on the licensing and sharing of its technology, as well as the high cost of Sony players.  I liken the battle between Betamax/VHS to Apple/Microsoft with one huge difference - the physical size of Betamax tapes made it impossible for inexpensive machines to swap formats unless they contained an adapter or a two cassette layout.
2) The Chevy Chase Show - I removed this reference because in popular culture because its more a "blip" of the moment than a colossal failure that we still don't sit around talking about after, (how many years?) This may be something that people in the entertainment industry may talk about, but if you go up to the average person in the street and mention his name, are they going to remember a this show, or National Lampoon's Vacation?
While I can appreciate these two examples, I think that the "Edsel" name continues to have enough of its own weight behind it, along with the selective imbedded links, and scholarly books on the Edsel to carry the legacy associations with its names. Now had the name association been made along the lines of mentioning Michael Chimino's Heaven's Gate (film) or the AMC Pacer, then I could see the relationship to things that costs millions of dollars and cost people their careers or threatened the survival of a major US Coprotaion. Stude62 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Betamax and Chevy Chase references

message: In 1958 Lincoln models sold for higher prices than there Cadillac counterparts and the Continental Mark, which though was not officically a Lincoln, but would later inspire the Mark Series, rivaled the 1958 Rolls-Royce in terms of its pricing. Fact is that the Contiental sold for more than twice as much as the top-of-the-line Cadillac; thus, I beleive that the statement, "Lincoln competed not with Cadillac, but with Oldsmobile" gives readers a false impression of the era's luxury market and should be removed from the article. Besides. lets not forget that Lincoln built the era's presidential limousines. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's a little late to add a comment but the article is correct: In fact, Lincoln was competing against Oldsmobile in the early Fifties. Just compare a 1953 Lincoln Capri against competition Olds or Cadillac (leave alone the Eldorado). Management was aware of that and changed scope within a few years. 1956-1960 Continental is a make of its own, not a Lincoln model. It was targeted for a limited market niche above usual Cadillac / Lincoln / Imperial territory. And while 1956-1957 Mark IIs were not profitable at a sales price of $10,000, they of course were at the level of a Rolls Royce. Although, the above mentioned 1958 Continental was already cheapened with sheetmetal shared with Lincolns. Accordingly, prices went down, too. I didn't check sales prices yet but I doubt that this car cost twice as much as the limited-production Cadillac Brougham. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln Pricing mention

message: For the following reasons :
* Too many POV sentences, here are a few examples :
*: The car brand is best known as the most spectacular failure in the history of the United States automobile industry.
*: For the 1958 model year, Edsel produced four models, including the larger Mercury-based Citation and Corsair, and the smaller, more affordable Ford-based Pacer and Ranger.
*: It was promoted by a top-rated television special,
*: Other less-touted but more enduring design innovations included a primitive attempt at ergonomically-designed controls for the driver, and self-adjusting brakes (often claimed as a first for the industry, although this was not so -- Studebaker had pioneered them earlier in the decade).
*: Edsel and its failures; "The aim was right, but the target moved" , a section name.
* I don't understand the table.
* The section Edsel in culture shoud be a prose text and not a list. Lincher 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: The following sentence is in two places in the article:
"It looked like a Merc sucking on a lemon," or men's reference to the horse collar grill as resembling a woman’s genitalia.  I don't think it belongs in the "popular culture" section but I'll leave it to someone doing more major improvements to tweak this...  Jpp42 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: Total production over three model years as quoted over the years constantly omits Edsel produced at Oakville, Ontario, Canada.  The number 110,847 has been repeated so many times, it is now erroneously assumed to be universal fact, when in reality Canadian-produced Edsels are just as much Edsel as those assembled in the U.S.  I have added Canadian production figures, and placed them in the article immediately following the U.S. production figures.  While the article wrongly attributes these figures to "sales", the concept is close enough. In reality, total actual sales in Canada included some models produced in the U.S., since only hardtops and four-door sedans were actually assembled in Canada.  Other body styles had to be imported from the U.S. (two-door sedans, station wagons and convertibles).  The final production total for 1960 Edsel was actually 2,846, not 2,848, although a few fake 1960 convertibles have been assembled after the fact from 1960 Fords with Edsel parts attached. No 1960 Edsels were produced in Canada. (Sources: The Production Figure Book For U.S. Cars, by Jerry Heasley, Motorbooks International; The Edsel Owner's Handbook, by Ty Triplett, International Edsel Club (for distribution to members only).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A58pacer (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production figures

message: There do not seem to be any pictures of the 1960 model, even on the separate Ranger and Villager pages.  I had to look on Google Images to see what it looked like.  Somebody needs to add some. Jason404 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1960 Model Pictures

message: My father always said no man wanted to buy one because the front grill looked like a vagina but I couldn't find this criticism in the article and don't want to cause trouble by adding it so I'll just leave these possible sources here for use at a future date. time magazine  auto mania by tom mccarthy  and Brand Failures by Matt Haig  (print book sources) daily kos  Andman8 (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, the references check out, but the DailyKos is derivative and looks like a blog.  I personally wouldn't include this however. Smallbones (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: front grill

message: "There is no single reason why the Edsel failed, and failed so epically." Doesn't really sound encyclopedic, does it? --75.90.234.197 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Epic fail?

message: What do "E-M" and "E-F" refer to in the final paragraph?  If those are abbreviations for the names of specific car models or series, they should be written out rather than abbreviated so that readers know what's being referenced.Rand Lamberth (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today 

message: This article doesn't have a popular culture reference section, but [The Homer](http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer) was inspired by this car. 129.59.122.172 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Homer" 

message: The reference for "The Ford Motor Company lost $250 million" is just "Carlson". Looks like it is missing a full reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marauder016 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference for "The Ford Motor Company lost $250 million" 

message: If the first sentence is correct and Edsel is a marque, then the article shouldn't be using "the Edsel" everywhere, as if it were a model. It's confusing. For example, in the lead,  I presume this means "all Edsels". If that's true, why don't we say that, instead implying that the "Edsel" represents a single model? —howcheng  {chat} 06:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of proper grammar, this is asking the proper question; in the context of Edsels, the marque itself seems to overshadow the model name.  Conversely, we don't say "the Ford" or "the Mercury" the same way despite both brands consisting of several nameplates when Edsel was in production.  Some minor revisions through the article may need to take place to fix this issue, but it should not make for an extensive change.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edsel or the Edsel? 

message: The opening paragraph says:
The Ford Motor Company lost $250 million[2] on Edsel development, manufacturing, and marketing.
Whereas further down, under the heading "End of Edsel", this appears:
The company lost $350 million...on the venture.
To paraphrase Lincoln, both of those numbers may be, but one must be, wrong.
: reply Things like this are part of how this article needs major reconstruction.  In response to this topic, I am of the thinking that the smaller figure is of a more specific context than the larger figure, which may apply to the venture as a whole. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Inconsistency