Talk:Great American Streetcar Scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Streetcars.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
Peer review Great American Streetcar Scandal has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Not urban legend

I deleted the description of the "General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy" as an "urban legend" because it begs the question by placing the arguments in the same categories as fanciful rumors such as women dying of spider nests in their hairdos. Cecropia 01:00, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? It seems pretty balanced to me, and a person claiming it is not neutral is supposed to put in here why they think it is not neutral. From NPOV disupute:

"If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article."

Philip J. Rayment 15:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I decided to re-add the tag. The vast majority of the article deals with refuting the idea of a conspiracy without actually detailing the conspiracy theory at all.-RomeW (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know anything about this: 2. Supreme Court docket No. 186 F2d 562, 1949 dml 14:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

This scandal was referenced in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[edit] Renaming this article

A proposal has ben put forward to require renaming of all articles that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, due to what proponents claim is the inherent POV of that phrase. Please see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. A vote is occurring at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory. -Willmcw 06:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Um ... this article doesn't have "conspiracy theory" in its title. It says "conspiracy." This is accurate in that there was a conviction for conspiracy.
There was a conviction for a conspiracy that didn't involve street car companies. Namely GM forcing it's bus-line subsidiary to buy GM buses. Isn't that the case? 208.181.1.157 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
However, a better title would be "U.S. vs. National City Lines," the name of the case with "GM streetcar conspiracy" as a redirect. GM wasn't the only defendant. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
You are probably right about the title for this article. However the renaming proposal keeps growing. It now includes articles that have the terms "conspiracy claims", "misinformation" and "rumor" in their titles as well. -Willmcw 07:23, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Duh! There is already a stub United States v. National City Lines Inc.. This article should be added to it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Woulncha know. I hate it when that happens. A while back I foud a stub, invested consederable effort researching material to expand it, and last week someone merged it into another article that had been there the whole time, under a slightly different capitalization. Do you want to add a merge tag? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article space

If National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, and American City Lines, the three major front companies, and their investors couldn’t make big money on buses, why did they tear up and scrap rail lines that they had paid good money for? Because that money was a pittance compared with how much they began making on cars, trucks, tires, gasoline, asphalt, and highway building. And, of course, they also made the buses and the bus tires and the diesel fuel for the buses that they sold to themselves (their bus companies) – and later, claiming intolerable losses, they sold the bus companies to municipalities trying to help their lower income people get around. An internal memo at Mack Truck that surfaced at the conspiracy trial explained it tersely: the “probable loss” for the investors in the bus companies would be “more than justified by the business and gross profit flowing out of this move in years to come” (Ref;jonathan Kwityny, "The Great Transportation Conspiracy," 'This World Magazine, San Francisoco Chronicle,'March 1, 1981, p.19'''''Italic text'Italic text' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.81.117 (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a "cut-and-paste" job, if someone wants to verify this info and incorporate it into the article text, be my guest.--Lord Kinbote 19:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

Wow, this article is chock-full of weasel words. I can't tell what things it says in the article actually happened. This is a problem. —pfahlstrom 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Form

By my direction, this article has been re-molded into a form that completely disregards the allegation that it is a "conspiracy theory," since the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are themselves POV. The current version approaches this whole thing as fact, and I've done my best to keep arguments from both proponents and critics in line with the article's flow while eliminating any potential POV jargon or the back and forth that was evident in the article as it stood when it was under its Conspiracy name.

Others may still feel that this article deserves the name conspiracy. If that emerges as the consensus, fine. But let's have a real chat about this first, undaunted by those in the auto industry and its supporters who would come on here and intentionally plant doubts in our heads by making the format of the article intentionally uncertain, which as we all know is in their interest to do. Kiko 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are "planting thoughts in your head". Did you run out of tinfoil or something?--Rotten 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is the current version crazy? It doesn't really do much to alter the content; it just changes the form to something more straightforward and clearly comprehensible. If you're calling the current revision crazy, you're saying it's crazy to challenge the belief that the streetcar scandal didn't happen, which is itself POV. 24.215.188.44 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rising real estate prices?

I don't see the link.

Are you saying rising real estate prices "Forced" transit companies to sell off real estate holdings in order to remain financially viable - a connection I don't understand ... or they sold real estate holdings because it was more profitable than running a transit line - a connection I do understand but BIG DIFFERENCE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James D. Rockefeller (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Simple, a transit company would build a line and houses would be build along the line, as people had acess to the transit line. Eventually, these prices got so high, that as roads were built to these areas, and people started to buy cars, the transit companies sold-off land in these areas as a form of "Self Subsidization" because of declining ridership. -comment was added by Screamingman14 at 11:41 AM EDT on August 7th 2007.

[edit] "The scandal alleges that NCL's companies had an ulterior motive..."

How can a scandal allege something? This allegation should sourced to someone specific.--Eloil 12:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overcapitalization in article name

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), this article should be renamed to Great American streetcar scandal, as "American" is the only proper noun in the title. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable statements in article

The article alleges that streetcars were not replaced during WWII. In fact during WWII automobiles were not replaced either because our manufacturing system was focused on war material. Streetcars are extremely durable machines and could easily be maintained during the war. New Orleans has streetcars made prior to WWII which are still running fine and give excellent service.

The article carefully omits the PCC streetcar which was designed during the 1930's as an improvement on the older designs and is still being manufactured and used all over the world.

While private automobiles are popular they are extremely expensive to operate even with massive government subsidies of a road system which is almost free to the driver. Many people would ride streetcars if only government authorities would allow us to. An example of a new successful line is New Jersey Transit's new light rail River Line between Trenton and Camden which has had to increase rush hour service from half hour to 15 minute headways to keep up with demand.

Street cars are not necessarily slow; on city streets traffic causes all vehicles to operate slowly. However it is possible to provide dedicated right of ways for street cars which allow for rapid operation. In the past this was frequently done. However many of those right of ways have been lost to us because they were abandoned in the conversion to buses.

These are only a few statements to correct the false impressions built into this article.

John Rydberg

Hi John. Welcome to Wikipedia. I suggest that you may want to create an account so you can have a user name. Also, please sign your posts by placing four tildes (~~~~) after your post. The system will automatically replace these with your IP address (or user name, if logged in).
You make many good points; however, these mainly relate to advocacy for light rail transit (or streetcars). We may not make our own arguments here, per se, but we may contribute facts that are properly sourced and presented in a non-POV fashion that may balance an article.
This article addresses not only the "conspiracy" or "scandal" but other causes that contributed to the decline of streetcars. Certainly National City Lines had an impact, but it was not the only factor. You particular point about streetcars in World War is accurate insofar as the durability of streetcars is concerned, but you must also be aware that streetcars and rail systems, like any other infrastructure, must be maintained. Rail transit had to be heavily used during World War II with minimal repair. By the end of the war, major expenditures were required to bring the systems up to a good state of repair. In many cases there was neither the will not the money to do so. This was one of the many "tipping points" that worked against streetcar systems. -- Cecropia 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The CATO institute stuff

There was some stuff that seemed far too detailed for the introduction, so I moved it into its own section, but then I started to wonder why we have this in the article in the first place -- it's basically just a verbatim duplication of something from an external website. It also seems like an attempt to insert bias-by-proxy. Would it be more appropriate for this to be put in the "Further Reading" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.191.210 (talk) 16:16, August 22, 2007 (UTC) Well, hearing no comments to the contrary, I just went ahead and did what I suggested above. 72.142.191.210 20:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reducing CATO to a link down in Further reading. I took a look at the linked pdf article; it completely avoids mention of the 1948 US vs. NCL proceedings. I think the CATO article is biased and revisionist. Binksternet 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The CATO Institute Continued

Binksternet, at least you agreed to have an opposing point of view in the article. Klippa deleted all text referencing it entirely. I have added a separate section called "Opposing Argument." I think rational minds will agree that both sides of this issue should be displayed, especially, when one side has at least one valid and sourced reference. Not just a newspaper article, but a full study.

I don't delete sections of the alleged claim because it leaves out important points the CATO study mentions.Hoopsworldscout 02:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with bringing in an opposing point of view if it were more balanced than the revisionist CATO hit piece we see in the PDF link. I wonder why CATO makes no mention of the court case and its outcome... Personally, I would rather not see the CATO disinformation material given such a welcome on this wiki page. CATO should be limited to a link in "Further reading".
The strongest contemporary arguments against streetcars were these: people who lived near them said they found them too noisy, and streetcars began to be seen by middle and upper class citizens as a low-class transportation form. The lawyer and the stock broker didn't want to be riding the same train as their maid or gardener. Another point that CATO misses completely is that small businesses thrive near rail stops due to the apparent permanence of rails but there is not as much of a rise in small business near bus line stops--the business owners don't hold as much faith in the bus line sticking around long enough for them to turn a profit. Binksternet 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I took out the added CATO section. Any usage of the word myth or the phrase urban legend has no place in this article. There is certainly room in the article for a section that lists and describes opposing arguments but I don't want to see a block quote from CATO. Binksternet 16:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that the Cato arguments are needed to preserve balance it would be better to summarize their points rather than presnet a blockquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Are Some Not Interested in the Public Seeing Both Sides of the Debate?????

The simple fact is this: just because the CATO study leaves out smaller details does not mean the opposing argument should be deleted entirely!

Your side leaves out the simple fact that streetcars were invented over 150 years ago, pre-dating the automobile, and virtually all modes of transport except the bicycle, and horse and buggy. The rise of the private automobile and combustion engine is the basic reason why streetcars died.

I lived in Melbourne, Australia, which has the one of the world's largest streetcar network, 120+ mile of lines, and loved riding it on occasion, but even I recognize that we something is old, its old, and above all, I recognize the value of fairness.

Using your logic, we should delete your entire side of the article because it leaves out this "big picture" basic point.Hoopsworldscout 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Elements section was being made redundant by your added section. I deleted your section and introduced two new arguments into the 'Elements' section. If you see something I missed, you could help expand the Elements section with your further observations of conditions at the time. Binksternet 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Once more I have to say that your section entitled Opposing Argument is somewhat covered in the Elements section. There's work you can do to bring more of the arguments to bear from within the Elements section, but don't keep bringing the Opposing Argument section in! Your first sentence's first three words are patently untrue: "The simple reality..." There is no simple reality in this situation. There are many viewpoints each loaded with strong proponents. Oh, and your CATO block quote selection still includes their "...little more than an urban legend that has been debunked..." bit of extreme POV. Binksternet 02:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Being fair and unbiased means granting at least equal space for both sides. Relegating one side to a few tiny lines buried in the elements section is far from sufficient.Hoopsworldscout 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to expand beyond "a few tiny lines" but the article isn't helped by the phrases "simple reality" nor "urban legend". Binksternet 03:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will delete those words.Hoopsworldscout 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I must be stupid, but I only see one "side" of the debate: the article title is "Great American Streetcar Scandal", but spend 90% of its content talking about "Non-conspiratorial causes of the decline of the streetcar", and, after reading it, there is zero trace of the scandal. Definitely a biased article, as it leaves the impression that Streetcars disappeared for some natural reasons... 82.230.65.68 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems this argument has carried quite a long time. Let me state that this scandal is TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT in many of my Urban Planning courses. And it is (the scandal or whatever you call it) cited as one of several major impetuses in the changing of the urban landscape in scholarly works. Suffice to say, it is a paramount breaking point in U.S. history -- from public a private transportation society -- that it affects all aspects of modern public policy and governance. It is only that the exact details of the "scandal" or "conspiracy" are not easy to spell out. So let me perhaps suggest for consensus that we accept this has occurred, it is not an urban legend, and instead focus on how we can portray and edit this article to the best extent of WP guidelines. .:DavuMaya:. 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)