Talk:Hummer H2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hummer H2 article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

1 Wow, NPOV
2 Off-Road
3 clarification sought
4 Manufacturing location
5 Moved POV discussion from article
6 Only 5% use the vehicle off-road
7 Weight
8 H2's offroad capabilities

[edit] Wow, NPOV

How much more NPOV can this article get?--68.81.105.166 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So NPOV, I am not sure were to start on this one.--Numerousfalx 02:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at this article myself. I think you guys mean "POV" ;-). As much as I agree with some of what has been said, this article screams point of view. I will ask for it to be reviewed.

The vehicle itself screams "POV"! Note that article does not state that this monstrosity is a fuel sucking, road wreaking, small car crushing pile of wretched excess - it only states rather mildly that some aspects of this vehicle are thought by some groups and persons to be not quite socially acceptable as a means of personal transportation, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons and the basic exploitation of the manufacture of tax loopholes and personal fears. Leonard G. 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When a large number of people have an intense opinion for or against some object, policy, political party, position, law, etc., and some of these are so outraged as to take direct action against the proponents/opponents, (in this case dealers and manufactures), than a statement of the positions for or against (whatever topic/object/etc.) is worthy of inclusion in the article. Leonard G. 16:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that there is substantial opposition to the H2, it is completely inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article that has an "attitude". Before my edit, the article was extremely one-sided. I reviewed the entire article, and found that it seemed particularly negative towards the owners of the H2. Examples:

"This [pipe step rail], of course, reduces its ground clearance and, consequently, its wall and rock climbing capabilities; which, in any case, appear to be of little actual interest to most purchasers."
"Critics point out that the success of this vehicle is largely due to U.S. tax policies for the self-employed (e.g., most dentists, lawyers, and many doctors), which offer incredible tax write-offs (essentially subsidies for the prosperous)..."
"A prosperous and qualifying purchaser of this vehicle may receive subsidies of between USD $30,000 to $40,000 (paid for by other taxpayers, including those of modest income)..."
"Ordinary taxpayers receive only a $2000 tax deduction for the Prius..."
"While some might point to the recent increase in fuel prices as the reason for the demand reduction, this seems unlikely given the economics of the vehicle and the type of buyer likely to purchase it (prosperous and definitely not of a "green" inclination)."
"Many casual observers note that these vehicles tend to be driven aggressively in urban environments; most likely due to the characteristics of the buyer rather than the vehicle."

I cite these examples as pure anger against the buyers of the vehicle. The above are extremely biased and seem to harbor not set-in-stone facts but resentment towards anyone who drives an H2. The author of these supposed facts provided no research citations and made it clear that s/he believes that most, if not all, H2 drivers are rich, aggressive, uncaring and suburban dwellers.

I also request that anyone who wishes to participate or continue participating in this discussion read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", especially the section concerning Advocacy of any type. We are not here to make political statements; we are here to provide facts. Linuxbeak 19:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still getting the feeling that there are editors that are harboring negative feelings towards not only H2 owners but those of higher incomes. Even if this is false, I am asking that everyone please be careful of opinions and wording. Even if you make an edit that is technically completely true, try to remain as far away from either side of the political spectrum as possible. Linuxbeak 18:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

How can one be a "critic" of a car!? Maybe of the person driving it. But the car? Tfine80 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible. I drove a car for years that I could give a long and unflattering critique of. Ralph Nader, I believe, was a critic of the Corvair. A lot of 70's American cars are refered to as boats, which is a criticism on their appearance and handling. Many people criticize the Pinto, and more recently, some Crown Victorias for safety issues connected with their fuel tanks, and GM (I think that it was GM) made a pick-up truck that received similar criticism for issues having to do with its side-mounted fuel tanks. The Explorer and Firestone tires shared a lot of criticism not many years back for left-rear tire blowouts. Jaguars and Harley Davidsons receive criticism for poor reliability. But these criticisms all center on physical/design flaws (real or imagined I won't say) in these vehicles, though, not the ethic or lack thereof that a vehicle may perceived as representing or advocating. --Badger151 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-Road

Why is this vehicle described as having "tremendous off-road ability"? That is simply not true; it's a Chevy Tahoe underneath and is barely competent anywhere but paved streets and highways.

Point taken; I did some checking of my own and it appears that the H2 is fairly good off road. The fact that virtually no one uses it that way is another matter; this can be said about the vast majority of SUV-type vehicles.

Note my snide remark at the end of Hummer H2#Accessories -- Leonard G.

Normally I would edit this for POV, but I think it might be a fact in this case... --SFoskett 13:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Fact: Debunking the Tahoe Frame Myth: The final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections. The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame. The mid-section is all new and is completely boxed. The rear section uses a modifed GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for 8000 pound gross vehicle weight. Hart1

I ended up cleaning up the frame bit a bit to provide more clarity. --Beastmaster 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beastmaster!-HArt1

[edit] clarification sought

With recent (2004) increases in gasoline prices (inconsequential to most purchasers), General Motors has had to introduce financial incentives on this vehicle.

Inconsequential to H2 purchasers, or to purchasers of other vehicles? I think a wording tweak is needed here, but I'm coming up against a wall. –Hajor 22:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I agree that the last part of the sentance does not follow the first.

Inconsequential to most purchasers of this kind of vehicle - even though highly subsidized by the tax write-offs, it takes a lot of wealth to be in a position to take that advantage - people with wealth who purchase this kind of vehicle could hardly care about the ecological consequences and if they are buying a 14mg (12)vehicle they probably don't care about gasoline prices either.

Perhaps more to the point is that the really "green" and (very) patient people are waiting for Prius's, while the safety concious are turning back to robust sedans, and the SUV types are becoming more practical as far as econonomy of operation and practicallity of parking is concerned. These could be some of the reasons for the fall-off in demand, plus the fact that for (almost) any vechicle there will be some market - perhaps that market for the H2 is simply satiated.

BTW, where are the fans to fill out the "Fans" section? At least the "Critics" section has not yet induced an edit war.

Leonard G. 03:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we have a reference in the tax subsidies section? I know about the heavy vehicle exemption, but $30k-$40k is a lot of dough. Where does THAT kind of cash come in?--SFoskett 20:17, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/take_action/articles.cfm?ID=10707 Yow! --SFoskett 23:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the link reference - the dollar amount does seem unbelievable, doesn't it? I moved this to a new external links section, as that is appropriate - only rarely, if ever, should external links be embedded in the text. This seems to be in general the way it is done at WP. Besides, that is just red meat for some anti-POV editor to trash the whole section and start an edit war. -- Leonard G. 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way - Google.com and www.alltheweb.com - search without quotes "hummer 2 fan site" - kind of like the famous "French military victories" search. Leonard G. 04:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing location

Needs a fact check, since an anon editor changed location and in a second edit change the manufacturer (apparent confusion between H1 by AG and H2 by GM) Leonard G. 03:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved POV discussion from article

User:Linuxbeak - Please take all discussions HERE rather than inside the article. That's not the Wikipedia way. --SFoskett 18:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

As requested, here is a summary of Linuxbeak's POV contentions:

I have attempted to deal with all of these criticisms in a fair manner. Please comment below if you disagree with my changes. --SFoskett 21:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, since no one has seen fit to respond to any of the work I did in researching these concerns and rewording the article in two days, does that mean everyone is satisfied that it is NPOV? I'd like to take that blot off the top. --SFoskett 18:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seems OK by me. --Andy M. 21:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read the article and discussion, and I'm happy with it. I think one could still infer a point of view from certain facts presented ("less than 5% use it offroad"), but these generally seem to be presented in a way that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The bulk of what seems to be contentious is under the heading "Criticism", which should clue the reader to be reading it critically, anyway. I say go for it! HorsePunchKid→龜 22:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Linuxbeak responded positively on my talk page so I will remove the NPOV tag. --SFoskett 20:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel economy

Linuxbeak: If you're going to include "worst case", you need to also include "best case"

Some sources for the Hummer H2's fuel economy: Motor Trend, About.Com (uses official ratings), Car and Driver. --SFoskett 20:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax benefits

Linuxbeak: This is about the vehicle, not about the people buying the vehicle or the tax bracket that they belong to. Get off the soapbox, please! This is quite blatantly ranting about the system of government and taxation. Stick to the article, and once again get off the soapbox. Cite sources. Suggests that this content comes from Greenpeace or PETA.

I misunderstood, but fail to see the point in even bringing up those two organizations if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The wording of the article is poor, so I hope that we can improve it now.

The alleged tax loophole, and George Bush's support for it, is discussed by the Detroit News here. It was actually expanded to $100,000 shortly afterwards under the 2003 Tax Act. Specifically, it is called a "Section 179 depreciation deduction" and allows the purchase price of a 6,000lb+ vehicle (up to $100,000) to be deducted from taxable income. The result varies based on tax brackets, since it is a deduction, not an exemption. And it does not make a vehicle "free". SelfEmployedWeb has an article on exploiting it as well. Now how to rephrase this? --SFoskett 20:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resource use

Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "aerodynamics of a brick". Requests sources for coefficient of drag figures.

"a bricklike drag coefficient of 0.57" - source: Automobile Magazine, July 2002, [1] Other Cd figures are widely available with a simple Google search and are listed at drag coefficient.

Cite them, then. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean? I added this article to "References" since it's a good overall review of the vehicle. Is this sufficient? --SFoskett 19:34, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you wanted a source on the Durango. Here's DaimlerChrysler's spec sheet. --SFoskett 20:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak: Commentary on "its poor fuel efficiency and consequent contributions to global warming and U.S. petroleum problems cause the vehicle to be detested by environmentalists" - "This statement is inherently flawed. It's not like this particular vehicle alone contributes majorly to global warming. Compare the amount of H2s in existance to the amount of cattle that release methane, and I think the cows are going to come out on top. Cite your sources on this one." Once again, an example. I'm asking that you put this into perspective. The H2 alone isn't going to destroy the world.

[edit] Wow, NPOV How much more NPOV can this article get?--68.81.105.166 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So NPOV, I am not sure were to start on this one.--Numerousfalx 02:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at this article myself. I think you guys mean "POV" ;-). As much as I agree with some of what has been said, this article screams point of view. I will ask for it to be reviewed.

The vehicle itself screams "POV"! Note that article does not state that this monstrosity is a fuel sucking, road wreaking, small car crushing pile of wretched excess - it only states rather mildly that some aspects of this vehicle are thought by some groups and persons to be not quite socially acceptable as a means of personal transportation, with appropriate documentation as to the reasons and the basic exploitation of the manufacture of tax loopholes and personal fears. Leonard G. 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a ranting booth. As much as I agree that the H2 is by far the most wasteful piece of personal machinery to hit the road, the article isn't supposed to reflect a point of view. 68.226.82.122 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) When a large number of people have an intense opinion for or against some object, policy, political party, position, law, etc., and some of these are so outraged as to take direct action against the proponents/opponents, (in this case dealers and manufactures), than a statement of the positions for or against (whatever topic/object/etc.) is worthy of inclusion in the article. Leonard G. 16:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) While I agree that there is substantial opposition to the H2, it is completely inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article that has an "attitude". Before my edit, the article was extremely one-sided. I reviewed the entire article, and found that it seemed particularly negative towards the owners of the H2. Examples: "This [pipe step rail], of course, reduces its ground clearance and, consequently, its wall and rock climbing capabilities; which, in any case, appear to be of little actual interest to most purchasers." "Critics point out that the success of this vehicle is largely due to U.S. tax policies for the self-employed (e.g., most dentists, lawyers, and many doctors), which offer incredible tax write-offs (essentially subsidies for the prosperous)..." "A prosperous and qualifying purchaser of this vehicle may receive subsidies of between USD $30,000 to $40,000 (paid for by other taxpayers, including those of modest income)..." "Ordinary taxpayers receive only a $2000 tax deduction for the Prius..." "While some might point to the recent increase in fuel prices as the reason for the demand reduction, this seems unlikely given the economics of the vehicle and the type of buyer likely to purchase it (prosperous and definitely not of a "green" inclination)." "Many casual observers note that these vehicles tend to be driven aggressively in urban environments; most likely due to the characteristics of the buyer rather than the vehicle." I cite these examples as pure anger against the buyers of the vehicle. The above are extremely biased and seem to harbor not set-in-stone facts but resentment towards anyone who drives an H2. The author of these supposed facts provided no research citations and made it clear that s/he believes that most, if not all, H2 drivers are rich, aggressive, uncaring and suburban dwellers.

Perhaps you could describe (or just edit) the parts you are referring to rather than accuse the rest of Wikipedia? Your prior edits gutted the article, better or worse. --SFoskett 20:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) How can one be a "critic" of a car!? Maybe of the person driving it. But the car? Tfine80 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's possible. I drove a car for years that I could give a long and unflattering critique of. Ralph Nader, I believe, was a critic of the Corvair. A lot of 70's American cars are refered to as boats, which is a criticism on their appearance and handling. Many people criticize the Pinto, and more recently, some Crown Victorias for safety issues connected with their fuel tanks, and GM (I think that it was GM) made a pick-up truck that received similar criticism for issues having to do with its side-mounted fuel tanks. The Explorer and Firestone tires shared a lot of criticism not many years back for left-rear tire blowouts. Jaguars and Harley Davidsons receive criticism for poor reliability. But these criticisms all center on physical/design flaws (real or imagined I won't say) in these vehicles, though, not the ethic or lack thereof that a vehicle may perceived as representing or advocating. --Badger151 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) [edit] Off-Road Why is this vehicle described as having "tremendous off-road ability"? That is simply not true; it's a Chevy Tahoe underneath and is barely competent anywhere but paved streets and highways.

I'm not a fan of giant SUVs - I drive a Miata! But I must disagree. The H2 is extremely competent off road - much more than the Tahoe (or Suburban) it is based on. In fact, Car and Driver found that the H2 was as competent as the H1 offroad! It is not just a Tahoe. --SFoskett 00:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) Point taken; I did some checking of my own and it appears that the H2 is fairly good off road. The fact that virtually no one uses it that way is another matter; this can be said about the vast majority of SUV-type vehicles. Note my snide remark at the end of Hummer H2#Accessories -- Leonard G. Normally I would edit this for POV, but I think it might be a fact in this case... --SFoskett 13:16, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC) Fact: Debunking the Tahoe Frame Myth: The final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections. The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame. The mid-section is all new and is completely boxed. The rear section uses a modifed GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for 8000 pound gross vehicle weight. Hart1

I ended up cleaning up the frame bit a bit to provide more clarity. --Beastmaster 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beastmaster!-HArt1

[edit] clarification sought With recent (2004) increases in gasoline prices (inconsequential to most purchasers), General Motors has had to introduce financial incentives on this vehicle. Inconsequential to H2 purchasers, or to purchasers of other vehicles? I think a wording tweak is needed here, but I'm coming up against a wall. –Hajor 22:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - I agree that the last part of the sentance does not follow the first.

BTW, where are the fans to fill out the "Fans" section? At least the "Critics" section has not yet induced an edit war.

Leonard G. 03:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/take_action/articles.cfm?ID=10707 Yow! --SFoskett 23:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC) Thanks for finding the link reference - the dollar amount does seem unbelievable, doesn't it? I moved this to a new external links section, as that is appropriate - only rarely, if ever, should external links be embedded in the text. This seems to be in general the way it is done at WP. Besides, that is just red meat for some anti-POV editor to trash the whole section and start an edit war. -- Leonard G. 04:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) By the way - Google.com and www.alltheweb.com - search without quotes "hummer 2 fan site" - kind of like the famous "French military victories" search. Leonard G. 04:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturing location Needs a fact check, since an anon editor changed location and in a second edit change the manufacturer (apparent confusion between H1 by AG and H2 by GM) Leonard G. 03:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked up on it. The H2 is built under contract by AM General, not by General Motors. It has a special factory in Mishawaka, but that plant is owned and operated by AM General. See this link. --SFoskett 13:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Moved POV discussion from article User:Linuxbeak - Please take all discussions HERE rather than inside the article. That's not the Wikipedia way. --SFoskett 18:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

As requested, here is a summary of Linuxbeak's POV contentions: I have attempted to deal with all of these criticisms in a fair manner. Please comment below if you disagree with my changes. --SFoskett 21:14, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) OK, since no one has seen fit to respond to any of the work I did in researching these concerns and rewording the article in two days, does that mean everyone is satisfied that it is NPOV? I'd like to take that blot off the top. --SFoskett 18:50, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) Seems OK by me. --Andy M. 21:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) I read the article and discussion, and I'm happy with it. I think one could still infer a point of view from certain facts presented ("less than 5% use it offroad"), but these generally seem to be presented in a way that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The bulk of what seems to be contentious is under the heading "Criticism", which should clue the reader to be reading it critically, anyway. I say go for it! HorsePunchKid→龜 22:02, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC) Linuxbeak responded positively on my talk page so I will remove the NPOV tag. --SFoskett 20:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel economy Linuxbeak: If you're going to include "worst case", you need to also include "best case"

I believe that the 14 to 17 mpg number is intended to be the "best case" and the 8 to 11 is intended to be the "worst case". It would be impractical to list the absolute best and worst case mileage - I bet I could make an H2 get 30mpg or 1mpg depending on driving style. These numbers are hard to come by since the manufacturer does not list official numbers. In most automobile articles, we would list the official mpg ratings, and would occasionally list notable or superlative numbers as well. --SFoskett 19:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Some sources for the Hummer H2's fuel economy: Motor Trend, About.Com (uses official ratings), Car and Driver. --SFoskett 20:06, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Tax benefits Linuxbeak: This is about the vehicle, not about the people buying the vehicle or the tax bracket that they belong to. Get off the soapbox, please! This is quite blatantly ranting about the system of government and taxation. Stick to the article, and once again get off the soapbox. Cite sources. Suggests that this content comes from Greenpeace or PETA.

I am not suggesting that this content came from either of those; what I said was "Again, cite your sources. If PETA or Greenpeace says this, then it's obviously coming from a POV source." Although you might read it as that, what I'm really doing is giving an example. If that information had in fact came from PETA or Greanpeace, then you wouldn't be able to make a non-POV statement out of it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) I misunderstood, but fail to see the point in even bringing up those two organizations if it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The wording of the article is poor, so I hope that we can improve it now. The alleged tax loophole, and George Bush's support for it, is discussed by the Detroit News here. It was actually expanded to $100,000 shortly afterwards under the 2003 Tax Act. Specifically, it is called a "Section 179 depreciation deduction" and allows the purchase price of a 6,000lb+ vehicle (up to $100,000) to be deducted from taxable income. The result varies based on tax brackets, since it is a deduction, not an exemption. And it does not make a vehicle "free". SelfEmployedWeb has an article on exploiting it as well. Now how to rephrase this? --SFoskett 20:02, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) [edit] Resource use Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "aerodynamics of a brick". Requests sources for coefficient of drag figures.

"a bricklike drag coefficient of 0.57" - source: Automobile Magazine, July 2002, [1] Other Cd figures are widely available with a simple Google search and are listed at drag coefficient. Cite them, then. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:24, Jun 8, 2005

[edit] Tax benefits 2

Linuxbeak: Asks for sources on "tax write off encourages the purchase".

This seems linked to the above discussion of tax benefits. Let's not duplicate here. --SFoskett 19:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backlash

Linuxbeak: Claims "seen by many as an epitome" is POV. Requests sources on eco-terrorism.

Alright, tell you what. Look here for exactly what I said. That way, you can bash me on what I myself said, not interpretted as. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:23, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to bash anyone. I was attempting to summarize your comments. If you disagree, please feel free to edit all "Linuxbeak:" lines since this was an attempt to include your own words. --SFoskett 19:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Source for "eco-terrorism" - CBS News, September 19, 2003 [2] --SFoskett 19:30, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only 5% use the vehicle off-road

If off-roading is what hummers are designed for, why would the vast majority of H2 users stay on the road if they are wasting so much fuel?

[edit] Weight

Is it relevant to discuss how it weighs over the weight limit allowed for most residential streets? gren 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

[edit] H2's offroad capabilities

I have removed the paragraph that User:Karrmann added regarding the H2's offroad capabilities. Here it is in its original form:

Many people claim that the Hummer H2 is practically useless off road, with videos proving it. (there is a video going around the web with a H2 snapping it's rear axle in half when driving no not very treacherous terrain). Also, it is based on the Chevrolet Tahoe which is more based on comfortible crusing than rugged off road capability. There is also the fact that the H2 has it's rear axle very low to the ground , which would make it not very capabile on terrain that buyers would expect this vehicle to conquor, which sometimes makes them believe that this vehicle doesn't live up to the reputation of the Hummer name, which was created by the H1.[3]

As is, this paragraph is far too biased, misleading, and unreferenced to be kept in the article. However, there is obviously a fair amount of debate about the H2's suitability for offroading, and it may be worth addressing in the article.

Many people claim — Weasel wording; if there are many people claiming it, find a credible source and link to it.
video going around the web — I have seen the video. The driver, incompetent at best, drops the entire front suspension onto a rock. Not the wheel/tire, mind you; the suspension itself. Naturally, the control arm popped off. Maybe we're talking about different videos here, but this is "the one that went around", as far as I'm aware.
based on the Chevrolet Tahoe — Yes, but to what extent? Has the Tahoe been shown to be a poor offroader? I'm not all that knowledgeable about this topic, but last I heard (can't source, unfortunately), the major similarity was the frame, and even there, it is significantly strengthened compared to the Tahoe. I would really be interested in a more detailed comparison, if possible; I can't find one at the moment.

In general, the wording needs to be tightened up. There are too many "some people believe"s in there and not enough facts or references, without which, it is basically FUD and not encyclopedic. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-22 02:19:04Z

If the H2 was any good, the military would be choosing it over the HMMWV. Clearly, the H1 is (mostly) "the real thing" and the H2 is a fashion statement involving conspicuous consumption. Not that the H1 is great for normal city driving, but it is at least a respectable and useful vehicle. The H2 is some sort of bad parody dreamed up by marketing. 24.110.60.225 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed an extreme other way POV. Please keep things as accurate and as middle of the road as possible. --Beastmaster 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarification - any video links showing pros or cons of the H2's capabilities really doesn't help the neutrality of the article. Both prior video links (one of the tie rod, the other of extreme offroading of H2's) needs to stay off, or at best, should be added as a link and not as part of the main article. --Beastmaster 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say that "Combined with a bountiful aftermarket accessory market, the H2 in its stock form and its modified form equal some of the best off road vehicles out in the market today" is an extremely PRO-H2 statement to be NPOV, especially given there is no direct source for this statement. If a leading independant off-road organisation reviews the H2 and makes such a claim then that is great, please source such a claim and provide a reference. But as it stands it is a very strong recommendation for this vehicle based on off-road performance: "the h2 in its stock form.... equal some of the best off road vehicles out in the market today". That is either opinion, or an assessment based on criteria which the reader does not have access to so it should be toned down. Garrie 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHummer_H2_42ee.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics