Talk:Criticism of sport utility vehicles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] the article is in fact 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 doesn't really help people understand SUV's rather it just introduces strong political viewpoints.

addition: I am also confused as to whether this article cites criticism of SUVs or the SUV owners themselves.. Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves. Also, the greater field of visibility from an SUV's height is passed over in favor of some alleged psychological misfunction 69.30.121.215 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)nightjason

The article is about the vehicle, not the driver. Some of your points about the statistical elements of the article are not quite on target. "Many points are about how statistically drivers of SUVs are unsafe, die in accidents, are caught drunk-driving more, etc., which have nothing to do with the safety of the vehicles themselves." That may very well have to do with the safety of the car. Its like having done an experiment, you have a control group (normal cars) and the SUV group; and the results are... I would agree with you on the drunk driving as there may be a third cause behind both; drunk driving and driving an SUV. Yet, everything else may have to do with the SUV itself. Brusegadi 18:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[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?—Preceding unsigned comment 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)
Yes, but the source itself is not trustworthy. It would be like me writing up a webpage and using it on wikipedia to source an outlandish statement. Thus, another source is needed, one that we can trust. Brusegadi 21:06, 24 July 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2007 January 15 (UTC)
I agree. Brusegadi 21:06, 24 July 2007 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.142.229 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2007 January 15 (UTC)
  • I have addressed your concerns and cited a report of the CNW investigation. -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also find the report rather sketchy. I will see what I can find in terms of research. Brusegadi 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


I did some reading about WP:RS and it seems like this source is not reliable, "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." It does not mean that we have to remove it right away, so I will not, but we should definitely discuss it. I will try to find something similar from a more trustworthy source, if I cant, I will be tempted to remove it thought.Brusegadi 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-stories/dust-to-dust-energy-costs.html http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2006/summer/ecovas.html http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/news/enviroreport.html http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hummer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

and the biggie:

https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T07-01_DustToDust.pdf

RMI, as opposed to CNW research, has a wikipage, thus, it is more prominent, older, has more at stakes when making claims, thus, I think it is more reliable. Brusegadi 22:22, 24 July 2007 (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.

[edit] Psychology section poorly written

I read through the safety - psychology section a few times and the third paragraph and the final paragraph in there are extremely poor quality. I'm not even sure what information is trying to be communicated there, can someone help? Pnevares 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gen fixes

I made some fixes to the article. Mainly, the format of inline refs and removing the name of specific SUVs since it makes it seem like advertisement. Brusegadi 02:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take it off

I dont know how but this should be put up as criteria for speedy deletion. It seems more of a campaign than an informational article to me. Most of the information is unfounded, entirely opinionated. Very biased. Gives a bad impression of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.53.24 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cleaned items that needed a citation

There were several items here that needed to be refrenced that have been up here for between 5 and 11 months. I believe any reasonable person would agree that an Item that needs a citation shouldn't go 5-11 months before this need is filled.--65.107.88.154 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Anons have expressed their opinions that the article is biased against SUVs (title...) Brusegadi (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ironically, article has no "Criticism" section

I added this comment yesterday, but it was removed by somebody. Fair enough, because I started ranting during my comment. Here's what I wrote (minus the ranting bit).

"The article is biased. It kind of tries to present itself as an innocent encyclopedic bit of information, but it is clearly grinding it's own axe. There seems to be a serious lack of counter arguments put forward."

Now how about somebody - perhaps one of you Wikipedia club members - fixing this? 86.162.70.68 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Apologies in advance for not signing in; I'm not on my own compy and I can't be bothered.) Nevertheless, you are perfectly free to add a referenced counter argument, with sources and all. Be bold. Further, I do not understand why someone has deleted your comment on the discussion page. To the person(s) that did that; FYIO, this is the discussion page, this is not the article, nor is this China.
On the other hand, the article is already a counter argument article to the ownership of vanity cars. While I do not agree with your POV (personally I have zero tolerance for selfish, arrogant, damaging, ignorant, egoistic vanity, meaning I have pretty much zero tolerance for US Americans in general) you are naturally free to express it, but please do so with referenced and quotable material. Original research tends to be deleted in a matter of seconds. Also, before you add material to an article please make sure such an article doesn't already exist on the Wiki. Thank you and have a nice day. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)