Talk:Corporate Average Fuel Economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] State laws ?

More information is necessary on any stae laws relating to this or lack thereof including mentioning any reason why these would not be allowed by the federal government with proper sources to back up this reasoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.162 (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More is necessary to explain how the procedure works, also I understand that ligth trucks are not included???? and I'm sure that SUV are not included !!Milton 15:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. Totally wrong. I thought you were an expert in these things? —Morven 15:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two cited needed

I've added two cite needed to a couple of claims that need backed up. Joncnunn 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suit against CAFE

[1] summarizes a lawsuit by 10 states and the Sierra Club saying that the new SUV CAFE limits are too high. Simesa 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CAFE by year chart way too small

It's competely non-readable in the current size. Needs increased 2 to 4X in size. Jon 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] impact

I just changed the impact section. please put criticism here 70.18.242.118 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim in the impact section that the mid 80s saw an increase in SUV and light truck purchase so I put a fact tag there. Any discussion about that can occur here. Pdbailey 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, 1980's did not see a migration away from passenger cars, except for the increased popularity of compact pickup trucks (usually imported - Nissan, Toyota, etc). However, the graph covers the 1990's as well, so mentioning the move in this context might be appropriate. Fallout11 12:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just paired down the analysis section because I thought it was reaching. It is certainly acceptable to extend it with references. Pdbailey 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on that section presently. Give me a bit with it, as it takes time to dig up and cite sources correctly in the newer WP format. Fallout11
That is about it for for now. Primarily, I worked on citations (either adding or updating) and related format or reconciling previous contributions into a more NPOV (or BPOV) format. Feel free to smoke it over.Fallout11 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
PdBailey, I reverted a couple of your recent edits, but wanted to explain why so it did not seem like it was done without regard.
1) The first, regarding the apparent lag time between lower fuel prices returning in the 1980's and the switch in popularity to lower fuel economy vehicles in the 1990s, is easily explained. When prices rise, consumer response is almost immediate, but when prices of a commodity fall, especially a very (historically) price volatile commodity like fuel, there is a much slower response to this price signal. Drivers in the 1980's still remembered the gas lines and high prices of the oil crisis of 1973 and 1979. Fear (one the two principle emotions that govern free market decisions) of a return to higher prices, as had occurred several times already in the last decade, kept would-be purchasers from running right out the next day and buying gas guzzlers. A gas guzzler tax also remained on the books. So yes, purchasers were slow to return to low fuel economy vehicles. This slowness does not invalid the principle hypothesis suggested.
2) Simple economics alone can account for a direct causal relationship between fuel prices and customer decisions regarding fuel economy in their vehicle purchases. Classic textbook return on investment at work. Customers purchase higher fuel economy vehicles (investment) when fuel prices are high because they wish to save money (return on investment) on fuel purchases, which can easily be the largest component of the total cost of ownership. Likewise, if fuel prices are low, there is little economic incentive to make purchasing decisions (investment) based on fuel economy, as the savings realized (return on investment) versus a lower fuel economy vehicle (that may be more desirable in other ways) will be nominal at best, reducing the importance of this criteria substantially. Fallout11 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Fallout11, I prefer, "A simplistic economic analysis" because the analysis is simplistic (cause -> effect) there is no second-order effects included (i.e. total cost of ownership rises so propensity to own a car goes down among the marginal car owner leading to more expensive--read heavy and fast--cars being the norm which leads to lower fuel economy.) If you can cite a journal article or news paper article saying the same, go for it. (2) regarding the lag time, I'm fine with prices being sticky, but I think your ignoring a lot more detailed analysis of geopolitics at the time, again, cite it and it can stay. I'm adding cite tags just to be clear where we need them. Pdbailey 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Pdbailey. I was able to dig up some citations to fill the cite tags you added.

As a general rule, it is difficult to locate usable citations for positional arguments (i.e. the absolutist claims introduced, 'it's all CAFE standards!' vs 'no, it's all pure economics!') as these tend not to meet WP:VER (blogs, radicalized websites with definitive bias, etc), but I was able to locate some moderate/MSM citations to largely back the positions put forth. The paper here (http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-03-44.pdf) from a few years back does a good job of analyzing both points, incorporating more of the complexities and externalities associated with CAFE standards, fuel economy, and automotive technology in general, so I added it as an external link. Most wiki readers are after a simple, encyclopedic summarization, but if they wish to delve more into the detailed analysis they generally do it elsewhere.

Thanks for adding some cites. I'm not sure I agree that there is so much controversy about this, but I think it's good enough for my level of caring now.Pdbailey 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calculation

Has anybody considered putting a section in that critiques the use of a "distance per unit fuel" metric instead of the "fuel per unit distance" metric (such as the liters per 100km metric that Canada uses)? The problem with using a fleet average miles per gallon, is that upping the average is most economically done (from the automakers point of view) by producing a small proportion of vehicles that is very fuel efficient, instead of improving the overall fleet efficiency. For example, the new 35 mpg CAFE standards set to take effect by 2020 in the US can be met by a fleet that is 75% gas guzzling SUVs that get 15 mpg, and 25% super-high-efficiency hybrids, getting 100 mpg. If you look at gallons per mile instead, the 35 mpg goal translates to 0.028 gallons per mile. But the 75/25 SUV/HEV fleet I described with a CAFE of better than 35 mpg, uses 0.052 gallons per mile on average. The problem is that the mean fuel economy can be affected by a small proportion of high efficiency outliers, while the total gas consumed and greenhouse gases emitted remains relatively unchanged. Another example: improving the gas mileage of a vehicle from 13 to 17 mpg saves more fuel (for the same amount of driving) than going from 50 to 500 mpg. I don't know if this qualifies as "criticism from the left". It seems more like "criticism from the quantitatively minded". Zaneselvans (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaneselvans, you might want to look again at the CAFE standard calculation, it currently works the way you wish it did. Pdbailey (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that! Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't catch the line linking to harmonic mean. Is there a good reason not to include a simple example calculation (like the one that the NHTA has on their CAFE overview page) in the "calculation" section? The harmonic mean and the mean can yield significantly different results, and I think it would be informative to point that out, with a line explaining why the harmonic mean is the right metric to use. Zaneselvans (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that what you propose would be a good and valuable contribution to the article. Please be bold and add it! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Pdbailey, I agree with a lot of the clarification of the paragraph after the harmonic/arithmetic mean that Scheinwerfermann made. I don't completely understand why you say it contradicted the paragraph preceeding the calculation. Is it because it said that "The CAFE standard, if implemented in terms of gallons per mile, would be the arithmetic mean (simple average) of the fuel economies of the vehicles in the fleet."? That's actually saying the same thing as in the first paragraph, but maybe it's not necessary. (the arithmetic mean of a bunch of 1/x quantities is the same as the harmonic mean of a bunch of x quantities). More important, for someone who isn't familiar with the different behaviors of these different averages... I think it's a good idea to say something about why one would want to use this particular metric of the fleet's efficiency/economy - i.e. because it cannot be changed without significantly reducing the amount of fuel the fleet consumes.

[edit] criticism section missing cristicism from the left

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (May 2007)

Currently this section only has criticsm from the right (e.g. those saying the standards are too high or there shouldn't be one.) It is missing the criticism from the left (e.g. those saying the standards are too low). It shouldn't be difficult at all to find a sourced criticism from the left. Jon 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary the problem is that there is so much criticism both from the right and from the left that it is hard to figure out how to summerize it all. Even the citation from right that are given are not the original complainers on these issues but rather hanger-ons. Jimad 22:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we use the NAS study's criticism. Pdbailey 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAS study

The National Academies of Science has done a report on this [2] I intend to include portions of their findings in the impact section. I think their conclusions hold more weight than any of the comments currently in there. I intend to use their findings and recommendations (pp 14-17 by acrobat reckoning, pp 3-6 by NAS reckoning). I think they hit almost every point in the current impact section. Pdbailey 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative vs. Liberal Viewpoint editing problem?

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but not to CAFE and NHTSA issues. Over the last couple of days someone with a conservative viewpoint has edited out a bunch of "conservative vs. liberal" viewpoint comparisons re CAFE that were backed up with references from the last couple of years, and replaced them with reference to a 10-year-old USA Today article only showing a conservative point of view. Obviously I think an article that cites both recent liberal and conservative viewpoints is more interesting and informative than a 10-year-old USA Today article. What, if anything, does one do in these situations? Jimad 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not to sure what to do about it but PBailey edit 03:07, 27 June 2007 seems intended to replace a discussion of liberal vs. conservative balanced references to the subject with a purely conservative position. Also, NAS is not the only sole well-reputed "experts" on this subject, NHTSA and IIHS are also well-reputed "experts" on the subject. [not to imply that I agree with NHTSA] Jimad 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the "USA Today" author cannot be considered a "well-reputed" source on the subject, his article is mainly just random unsubstantiated positions. Jimad 04:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimad, I would start by saying that which side gets more play, or who is conservative or liberal is irrelevant to this article. The article is supposed to comply with the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines in general. In light of that, if the USA today piece is just jotted off, axe it.
Next, I don't think that Wikipedia should have one side says this, the other side says that as its main text. I'd prefer to stick to the facts rather than the spin. The NAS is not liberal or conservative--it's the clearing house for excellent science. While I would say that since it starts with the premise that scientific inquiry can answer many questions, it would alienate more of the right than the left, but I think that's neither here nor there.
Now, lets get down to the real deal, if you have specific problems, please bring them up here and lets discuss them.Pdbailey 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether you think that the author is a well-reputed source is not relevant to the discussion; USA Today apparently does, and they are a reliable and well-reputed source suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors do not engage in original research, but use reliable sources such as USA Today and report what they write about the subject.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a "real problem" with the USAToday article. It is an 1999 article quoted from a SUV fan-site based on 1995 data. The author is inflammatory, and does not support his positions with reference to any verifiable "scientific" facts. There has been a tremendous amount of research done on this issues over the last twelve years that covers the subject better. I don't think Wiki is helped by quoting this kind of trash journalism. Re "Liberal vs. Conservative" -- even within the "scientific community" there is this scism between scientists who firmly believe that mass is *required* to protect passengers and those who firmly believe that mass isn't *required* to protect passengers, on the contrary that mass tends to kill the occupants of the other vehicle. This scism *exists* even in the current "scientific" literature, and I think the best thing that Wiki can do at this point in time is to acknowledge that even amoung scientists there are two sides to this debate. When you edit out reference to recent scientific papers and replace them with the 1999 USAToday article from the SUV fan-site quoting 1995 data, this to me is not helpful to Wiki -- it is replacing our current state of knowledge on the subject with what was written a decade ago about something that happened back in 1975. (unsigned comment by Jimad at 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
Where the article is hosted does not matter. We could cite the article even if it wasn't online, but it's nice to include the link to it so that readers can read it for themselves if they so choose. All research on the matter should be included if it improves the article. What are the scientific papers that were edited out?--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimad, you just added and article titled, "the Fuel Economy and Safety of New Light-Duty Vehicles." My issue with that paper is that it isn't edited, because it's self published. It also isn't a study in that there were no experiments performed, meaning it's a review. But most of the claims aren't referenced, just the figures. It's fine to have the claim there, but why not have primary research or other secondary research? Pdbailey 13:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The LBNL reference is published by the US Government. It is no-more or no-less self-published than Kahane, who is also published by the US government. It is no-more or no-less self-published than the USAToday article. When a statistical researcher publishes a graph and say what data set the graph comes from, the implication is that the graph is a result of their statistical study. I agree that ideally that statistical researcher would publish methodology at the same time, so that independent reviewers can try to duplicate their results. In practice FARS data is not generally usable to the "general public" in that it requires buying expensive database software out of the reach of the general public. So the repeatability of results will depend, as it always has depended, on other experts in the field of statistical safety studies. This only happens, as in all of science, when the scientific validity of some previous work comes into question, at which time other scientists try to recreate the previous work, to see if it is in fact repeatable, or whether they have other arguments about the methodology used. This is what is happening to Kahane now. Certainly the disparity between the US government position, which says "we cannot increase MPG because of safety reasons", and the EU/Japan position, which says "we can and we have increase MPG by 2X and further our vehicles end up being safer than US vehicles" -- well this dicotomy is striking. One cannot say "The US Governemnt is right" or "The EU/Japan are right" at this point in time. One can say that this area is falling increasingly in dispute.Jimad 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is also another dimension to the EU position-- they do not have the strict emissions standards that the US has, so they use diesel fuel, which produces higher mpgs and more efficient fuel usage. Diesel would not pass emissions inspections in America unless it got a lot cleaner. If this is not mentioned in the article, it should be. The EU and America cannot be compared head-to-head on this issue.--Gloriamarie 07:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Re Diesel -- I think that as-of 2008 USA and Europe are converging on this issue. See for example the "Bluetec" engines from a number of European manufacturers. Also Urea injection diesel engines. Agreed in 2007 USA had higher standards than Europe for diesel engines which is why there basically could be no diesel engines sold in USA in 2007. Since this issue seems to be converging I don't think it warrents a diesel discussion about why Europe has higher fuel economy than USA. If you want to include this discussion then it gets into the issue of "is diesel bad or good?" -- I say "good" because it can run biodiesel and I would be happy to accept a localized increase in air pollution for a global reduction in greenhouse gases. Except that diesel doesn't have the problems of localized particulate emissions with the 2008+ diesel engines. Jimad 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Gloriamarie and Jimad, the emissions issue is not quite as simple as that. US Federal emissions standards, like US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, are frequently described as «the most stringent in the world», or at least «more stringent» than those of the EU. So reliable is the appearance of this description in a discussion of the issue, whether it be a news article or a literature review or even a study, that it's practically a Homeric epithet. It sounds good, and it gives a warm fuzzy to Americans who would like to consider their regulations and standards the best in the world (and it sounds even better to those who rely on technical standards as non-tariff trade barriers). The problem is it isn't accurate as stated and commonly understood. There is a very significant window of overlap between the EU and US emissions standards, but because the test protocols are radically different, there are noncompliances in both directions. That is, there are vehicles that pass the US certification tests but fail the EU approval tests, and there are vehicles that pass the EU approval tests but fail the US certification tests. For the most part, this does not indicate that EU vehicles are permitted to emit more of any particular pollutant, or more pollution in general, than US vehicles. It is simply down to significant differences in test protocol. The obvious next question, of course, is why test protocol differences should prevent automakers from producing vehicles clean enough to pass both tests. The answer is that the calibrations and configurations needed to meet one specific test protocol often run a vehicle afoul of the other test protocol. Emission certification (US) or approval (EU) tests cannot possibly cover every last combination of engine speed, load, vehicle speed, atmospheric pressure, etc., so the protocols consist of test conditions representative of common operational modes. This is where the differences come in: What is considered "representative" and what is considered "common" depends largely on who is writing the test protocol, and the regulatory philosophy behind it. For that reason, it is essentially impossible to compare US vs. EU emissions standards and arrive at an assertion with any veracity that one or the other standard is significantly more or less stringent.
But even if we were to assume for the purpose of debate that the two test protocols were identical and the EU and US standards differed from each other only in that the EU standards permitted a higher level of pollution to issue from each vehicle's tailpipe, a confounding issue would still prevent a decisive statement on emissions, for the EU average road vehicle fuel economy is roughly double that of the US. This means they burn roughly half the fuel per distance unit travelled. Even if the US tailpipe emission standard were twice as stringent as the EU standard (which is nowhere near realistic even for our hypothetical thought exercise here), the questions remain: Is it better or worse to have the pollution come from the process of extracting, transporting, refining, and distributing oil rather than from a vehicle tailpipe? And, is a slightly more permissive tailpipe emission standard acceptable or perhaps even desirable if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions? Regulatory philosophy is not so simple as it seems on first glance. --Scheinwerfermann 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I put back in the conservative "stewardship" argument, because Hu didn't give a rational for deleting it. If anyone wants to argue why or why not this should be in there, let's talk about it. To me, putting in the conservative argument of national defense and not putting in the other conservative reasons looks like bias. 24.16.114.238 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] debate section

I just created an "active debate" section in the "imact" seciton. I'd suggest we remove that and leave it to the bottom section titled, "Criticisms."

[edit] cutting speculation

"Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Ma) and other cosponsors has presented H.R.1506 to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2018 for new vehicles [19]" Unless such legislation passes the house and senate and is signed into law, it's just speculation and doesn't belong in this article. Jon 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jon, on what grounds? HR1506 is, in fact, a bill, and it's existence is not speculative. Pdbailey 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article seems biased to me. In the "Active debate" section, most text is a criticism of the program, and 5/7 subparagraphs being with a criticism of the program. Superm401 - Talk 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know what to do...be bold and add the relevant, encyclopædic text you feel is missing, with documented assertions. You say the article seems biased, but specifically what positive aspects of the CAFE program do you feel have been unfairly neglected? Perhaps there are more negatives than positives to CAFE as conceived and implemented. It is erroneous to think that everything on earth — particularly every government program — has a nice, clean, 50/50 mix of benefits and drawbacks. --Scheinwerfermann 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann, it is fine for a user to add an NPOV tag and then not fix the article in question--it's a contribution to the article, when the tag is valid. However, (this is to you Superm401) when you add an NPOV tag, you need to clearly state what might be fixed for it to be taken down, and it looks like just balancing the number of paragraphs is the suggestion--I'm not sure that is such a great one. Pdbailey (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the article has problems, in that the authors of the article basically fall into two camps: Those who dislike CAFE for going to far, and those who dislike CAFE as not going far enough. Which leads to kind of a "he says she says" style of article. Which is still better than an "he says he says" or a "she says she says" kind of article. If you want to see an article that REALLY has problems, lookup "NHTSA" ! Jimad 04:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the March edit by Scheinwerfermann citing "NPOV" removing what I believe are simple factual statements that NHTSA doesn't *currently* regulate light trucks exceeding 8,500 lb. etc. This edit also removed the previously greatly and hotly debated "twice as high" statements where it was previously agreed that the "twice as high" statement should stay in. I don't understand Scheinwerfermann's argument that his edit is justified based on "NPOV." If he can explain how his edit is justified by "NPOV" then I will leave his edit in, else I will assume the edit was a mistake and reverse it. Jimad (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a diff for the edit you're talking about — I think you are somehow confused. None of my March edits removed a statement that NHTSA doesn't currently regulate light trucks, and the "twice as high" statement is alive and well in the article. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre and Inaccurate Statements

From the first paragraph: "The European Union and Japan have fuel economy standards almost twice as high as the United States." WTF? The cited source does not make this claim. The claim itself is counterintuitive as it implies that Japan and the EU mandate a fantastical 50+ mpg standard. Some editor is either dishonest or has serious reading comprehension problems.Arcas2000 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that the assertion was not supportable either by the cited reference or by actual fact, but there are more constructive responses than complaining and applying an unnecessarily severe tag to the article. When you find an assertion you know to beconsider problematic, it's best to be bold and fix it with supporting references. I've gone ahead and fixed the assertion to square with reality, and I've removed the spurious tag. As for how the inaccurate assertion got there, while it's certainly possible an editor wished to promulgate his personal opinion, it's also possible the editor who wrote the statement simply failed to express clearly what he meant. It happens to the best of us, and Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith in the absence of a clear pattern of deliberate misbehaviour. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (Updated by Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
Arcas2000, I can see what you were objecting to in the statement you deleted, but it was just overstated, not wrong. I've restored it and fixed it so that not only is it accurate, but it is also supported by the cited reference. Please take a few moments to think carefully about the intent behind the "be bold" policy. It doesn't mean you should summarily delete text you don't like (especially not text supported with valid citations). Rather, it means that if you see something wrong, you should do your best to fix it. If you are not able to do so for whatever reason — you don't know enough about the subject matter, you haven't got time, etc. — the best course of action is to make a request on the article's talk page and/or tag the questionable assertions as needed. Wikipedia is a coöperative effort, not a competitive one. Thanks for being a helpful and productive Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)(talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (Updated by Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
I stand by what I originally posted here. The reference on its very first page shows a plot with the EU and Japan in the near term having standards in the 45-50+ MPG range. The US in the same time frame has a CAFE of 25 MPG. This sure sounds like "nearly 2X to me". You guys are editing out factual statments simply because you do not like to have the truth exposed to the light of day. Jimad (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimad, I went back and took a closer look at the ref, and you're right. The ref definitely complies with WP:RS, and says just what you said it says. I've restored your assertion, and I've updated my comments in this subthread. That said, let's all of us — you, me, Arcas2000, all of us — try and tone down the accusations and assumptions a few notches. It doesn't accomplish anything, and it certainly doesn't help improve the article. Let's all try and assume good faith on one another's part, carefully and thoughtfully evaluate the references used to support assertions we may suspect are not true before deciding they aren't, stay cool and avoid inflammatory language (including talk page section titles) and accusations of personal agendas or fear of the truth, etc. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As noted above under "NPOV" Scheinwerfermann once again editted back out again the section debated here without explanation or rationalization for his actions. I would like him to justify his edits based on his assertions of "NPOV", please? Jimad (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimad, I did not make any such an edit as you describe. "Twice as high" is still alive and well in the article. I haven't touched it or its section. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that CAFE created SUVs is patently and provably false. SUVs predate CAFE. For examples, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Suburban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Broncohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_K5_Blazer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Harvester_Scout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_%28SJ%29 and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle Given these facts, this article stating that automakers created SUVs as a result of CAFE does not belong and thus should be removed. Further the two "supporting" links are to the columnist making the claim without supporting it. THus at best it shoudl say the "Some have claimed..." and then be followed with the facts that the SUV predates CAFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucntcme (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ref dates shown red

I think the format for dates using Template:Cite web should be in the format 2008-02-25 Palmiped (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality revisited

Jimad, I know you are a strong proponent of CAFE...and that's a bit of a problem. Not because I'm some kind of CAFE opponent, but because as a core policy of Wikipedia, we strive to maintain the neutral point of view in articles here. Ideally, it should be impossible to discern the personal opinions and preferences of any particular editor by the content of his edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a soapbox or a venue for press releases, so it's incumbent upon all of us to be mindful of our personal biases and points of view, and not let them creep into our edits. You've added a lot of high-quality references to this article, and that's a real help. But long pull quotes from cited sources that happen to agree with your own opinion, the use of verbs like "claim" rather than more neutral ones like "say", "assert", or "state", and other such tactics don't help the coöperative group effort to improve this (or any other) article to the maximum possible extent. We trust our readers to process the information we provide and come to a logical conclusion; advocacy for any particular conclusion or position is not in line with what Wikipedia is or how it works. Please keep your opinions and biases in mind when you edit. Thanks for being a coöperative Wikipedian. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann, I believe one of the problems the CAFE article is having is in turn the personal biases you are displaying in your edits. I do not personally see any "bias" difference between a "claim" vs. an "assertion" when coming from a GM retiree, for example. I am happy to write "assert" instead of "claim". I would ask in return that you stop from editing out wholesale other people's work at least without giving a well thought-out rationale for your behavior. For example you recently agreed that you would leave in the "twice as high" statement but then you came back on a later date and take it back out again. Jimad (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am NOT a proponent of CAFE. Rather I agree with GM’s Chairman Rick Wagoner that a more sensible policy would be to make gas prices higher to include the "external costs" of global warming. We know that such a policy actually works -- in Great Britain for example. What I am a proponent of, however, is NOT using highly biased conservative sources as-if "factual" sources of information for this article without at least also quoting "liberal" sources stating an opposing point of view. Jimad (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Claim" and "assert" have the same denotation — they indicate that somebody has said something. However, "claim" has a negative connotation, implying a lack of veracity or basis for what was said. I'm glad you haven't got a problem with "assert" or "say" or "state".
I don't believe there to be much personal bias in my edits, but if you will please point me to an example of the personal biases you perceive in my edits, I'll be glad to think it over. I haven't touched the "twice as high" statement you're talking about, or anything in its vicinity in the article. See for yourself; it's still there. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dieter Zetsche quote

Jimad: I have removed your Zetsche quote for a couple of reasons. It was spurious as placed, right before the referential summation of a group of scientific studies of vehicle safety vis-a-vis mass, engineering quality, and fuel economy. An opinion — even Zetsche's opinion — is not a study, nor analogous to a study. Furthermore, the quote was not informational; it was a selfgratulatory piece of C.Y.A. You quoted him as saying "there is no evidence that you are less safe in his small vehicles than in any kind of vehicle, no would you be trading fuel efficiency and space efficiency against your health or your life." This falls squarely into the category of press release opinion; it's not backed up with any data, and keep in mind that the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. "There's no evidence my small cars are unsafe" doesn't mean my small cars are safe, it means I think you can't prove they're unsafe. What's more, the reference you provided did not contain the quote you added, even in paraphrased form. Perhaps it is on a different WSJ page, maybe one available only to paid subscribers, but it is not on the page you linked.

More than that, though, I'm still concerned at what still looks like your passionately-held opinions influencing your editing. There is already a great deal of high-quality support in this article for the notion of engineering and build quality having a far more significant effect than vehicle size or mass on vehicle occupants' safety. So much, in fact, that it's quite clear to the reader that this is where the preponderance of evidence sits. Your ongoing efforts to pack the article with the print equivalent of soundbites supportive of your opinions and preferences is disingenuous and does more harm than good to the article. I don't mean to suggest you shouldn't contribute to this article, but please take a step or two back and try to put some more distance between your beliefs and the edits you make. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann I believe your reversal of my edit for reasons that are patently untrue consitutes "vandalism". I reviewed the article I quoted and it says literally:
The Dieter Zetsche quote was: "Well, obviously, the Smart is in the market in Europe, and there are no statistics that would support [the idea] that you are less safe in the Smart than you are in any kind of vehicle. And there is no evidence that you would trade fuel efficiency and space efficiency against your health or your life."
What I quoted him as saying was: "In 2008 Dieter Zetsche, head of Mercedes-Benz, said there is no evidence that you are less safe in his small vehicles than in any kind of vehicle, no would you be trading fuel efficiency and space efficiency against your health or your life."
Your stated reason for removing my edit is that it was not supported by the paper quoted. Your statement was patently untrue. As can be seen above it is almost quoted verbatim from Dieter's remarks. Please reverse your reverse.
You continue to ignore that it is YOUR passionately held views that continues to cause you to reverse edits that contradict your own passionately held views. At least if you feel that the Dieter quotes don't belong in this section, then certainly you ought also to remove the Heartland Institute quotes and the "USA Today" article as being devoid of current factual content nor from interesting people nor from reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimad (talk • contribs) 06:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Jimad, I have no passionately-held views on the subject of CAFE. I am doing my part to improve the article according to Wikipedia's standards for content, support, and structure. The reference link you provided, when clicked, did not yield the text you quoted — this can easily be verified by anyone who cares to click the link, which goes to an introductory teaser for a Wall Street Journal article evidently available only to paid subscribers. That in itself doesn't mean the Wall Street Journal is an unreliable or unsuitable source, but it does mean all we have is your say-so that the text you're interested in actually exists in that article. If you can provide verifiable support for your quote, perhaps there's a place for it in the article, but then again, perhaps not. Again, it still amounts to a statement of opinion from an individual with a heavily vested interest. As such, it tends to weaken and dilute the strong factual support provided for the view that there is not necessarily a correlation between a vehicle's mass or size and its crashworthiness. Keep in mind we're writing an encyclopædia article here, not a blog post or a magazine article or a TV news script, so there's less emphasis on quotes and more emphasis on data and facts supported with verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks for the pointers to the Heartland Institute and USA Today articles; I'll give 'em a look. Please also remember to sign your posts on talk pages.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You position is absurd. The WSJ sais what the WSJ said. If you are unwilling to pay to view their online journal, and if you are unwilling to pay to have it delivered to your doorstep, you can go to your local library, ask them to find the copy of WSJ in their back racks, and you can read it in the paper yourself. If you read the FAQs about citation templates there is no requirement there that Scheinwerfermann be able to read the reference without getting off his bottom, on the contrary the variety of cites available makes it clear that it might actually take Scheinwerfermann some considerable work to be able to independently verify one or another cite. If you are not willing to put in the work to back up your edits, then stop doing your edits, which I clearly do not believe represent a valuable contribution to Wiki given your current level of commitment to doing the work necessary to back them up. Nor are you willing to read enough of the literature to understand what the current state of knowledge is re this matter so that you can maintain an "unbiased" editorial position. Rather, you belief system is stuck in the 90s, because you have not done the work necessary to stay current. Conversely, when I provided a free online link to the government report version of the National Sciences article, so that people can freely read a government work that the people have already paid for, then someone instead changes the link to a pay-per-view copy of the report in order to deny the average Wiki reader access to what was actually said by the National Academy.Jimad (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's keep it civil, please.

Jimad, please take a few moments to look at the tone of your posts on this talk page. It might be a good time to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, and review Wikipedia policies on behaving in a civil manner and assuming good faith. I have long made it very clear that I see the significant and valuable contributions you've made to this article on an ongoing basis. But you continue to engage in namecalling, unfounded accusations (e.g. the repeated claim I deleted something which was in fact not deleted by me or anyone else), strident diatribe, issuing baseless orders to other editors to "stop doing your edits", persistent refusal to read and follow Wikipedia policies...all of this behaviour undermines your credibility and damages the project. Please cool it a little and remember I am not your adversary. Wikipedia is a coöperative project, not a competitive one.

Your complaint that somebody changed your link is probably most productively taken up with whoever might've changed it. Once again, my beliefs (or "belief system", as you put it) don't enter into this. We must each do his best to exclude our beliefs, opinions, and preferences from our editing activity here on Wikipedia. That said, if you'd please just take a moment to read what is put in front of you instead of rushing for your verbal shotgun every time someone touches one of your edits, you would easily see that we seem to share similar views on the veracity of some of the claims made regarding vehicle mass & size vs. crashworthiness. That means we're not on opposite sides of the issue, which is another good reason for you to please stop complaining about what you perceive as my "belief system". I'm sure we can work this out and move forward on improving the article; I'd really rather avoid having to opt for administrator intervention, wouldn't you? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If in fact you are open to consider scientific facts re CAFE and safety then please reverse your previous edit-out of the Smart Car safety quotes since scientifically-speaking Smart Car has now been independently tested by IIHS and found to have their highest rating of "Good" on front and side crashes. Contrary to what NHTSA continues to preach, what matters for occupant safety is stiffness in vehicles, not weight, such that the crash cage remains intact and the occupants are not crushed or smashed against the hard surfaces of a vehicle. http://www.iihs.org/news/2008/iihs_news_051408.pdfJimad (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)