Talk:Criticism of sport utility vehicles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] the article is infact unbalanced in favor of oposition to SUV's
However the point of the article is to express critisizm of suv's (which has a strong political bent) on a page other then the SUV main page. 1) So it can have a balanced article of it own, and 2) because it unbalances the discussion of SUV's article as it dosent really help people understand SUV's rather it just introduces strong political viewpoints.
[edit] Added external links to this page
From 1) SUV 2) Car Safty 3) 4wd
[edit] so called cnv research
The quoted cnv research study is an obvious piece of garbage. Anyone who'd actually read it can't seriously doubt it. Would you please point any specific inaccuracies in my criticism before yanking it? And: did you even read it, DeFacto?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs).
- The study by CNW Marketing Research has been widely reported and widely commented upon in reliable sources - it qualifies for inclusion in an article which comments upon the CO2 emissions of SUVs. Any counter-claims about the research, are, of course, valid too. Such counter-claims though can only be ones which have been "published by a reliable source" - that is stated in the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Your own personal criticism is not allowed under that policy. Equally, any valid, published research needs to be presented using a neutral point of view - see the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. You cannot use language such as "the cited write-up is an interesting piece of Propaganda", unless you are reporting comments made in another respected source - in which case you need to cite that source so that the interpretation can be verified. -- de Facto (talk). 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The term "study" is commonly associated with research. The cited write-up however does not qualify as such, because it gives no sources for its claims/numbers and does not describe the methodology used; none of its claims are verifiable. As such, it is not more than a stated opinion. The term propaganda is an appropriate description of it, as the write-up satisfies the criteria from the reference article on propaganda. If you object to it, please state explicitly why. You state that "any valid, published research needs to be presented using a neutral point of view" -- again, please provide back-up for your claim that the CNW write-up qualifies as research. You discount my claims about the contents of the "study", claiming that I provide no reliable source. What I stated can directly recognized as contents of the study itself; thus, my representations are properly backed up by your own standards. Again, if you object, be specific, and don't make vague and non-verifiable claims. -- anonymous coward —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2007 January 15 (UTC).
-
- The CNW "study" is a self publishes source, which according to the rules governing Wikipedia:Verifiability is not acceptable. You have also not made an attempt to provide any Reliable_sources referencing it. Accordingly, I have removed the reference from the SUV criticism page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2007 January 15 (UTC).
[edit] Market influence to make SUV's worse in terms of offroad prefomance
perhaps someone could add something about how the market is forcing traditional desighns such as the landcruiser to evlove into people movers which have reduced offroad preformance.
eg
prado - lower clearance and reduced attack angle; 79 series - coil suspension instead of leaf on the front
if people who bought 4wd if they actually were going to use then there would be less therfore environ benifits and people who use 4wds would be happy.
