Talk:Plymouth Acclaim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added section headings for engines and transmissions, added FFV info, added passive restraint info. Stainless steel exhaust was definitely standard equipment at least as early as 1991 and may have been standard equipment right from the start in 1989; I am checking into this. A604 trans was used on most (but not all) 1989-1992 V6 cars, 3-speed auto on most (but not all) '93-'95 V6s Suspension was not softer than in the Spirit! All suspension components (springs, shocks, struts, etc.) are identical, part number for part number and year for year, on base-model Spirits and Acclaims. Stiffer suspension was standard on Spirit ES and R/T but was optional on Acclaims. Maybe that's where the confusion came from. Scheinwerfermann 14:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Predecessors 2 Wiarthurhu Vandalism 3 DELETING SOURCED CONTENT 4 VANDALISM AND REVERTING 5 Compromise 6 Article header image

[edit] Predecessors

Wiarthurhu, there is no reason to rehash the AA-body predecessor debate here. It has already been done to death in talk:Dodge Spirit, and it has been settled by information directly from Chrysler Corporation, the builder of the cars. Further insertion of incorrect predecessor information based on your insistence on your part that you are right and Chrysler Corp was wrong will constitute vandalism and will be dealt with accordingly. Scheinwerfermann 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusion is unsourced, restoring it by knowingly removing a sourced edit is in bad faith, and therefore vandalism. There are three websites and two books that state the Acclaim/Spirit were meant to replace the K's, and that is not contradicted by your internal document, which, by the way, cannot be found in any library. Like the "F-14 was not maneuverable" on the basis of reading an article that did not mention that feature, you are concluding that "Aclaim was not designed to replace K-car". The document only says that, on introduction, it was to replace the other eek. It is entirely possible that marketing planners, on deciding to continue to sell the K-cars, reversed their plan to replace the K-car. This would in no way change the original intention, and after the retirement, three websites and 2 books could be entirely correct and not be contradicted by tha internal document, which was never intended to be seen by the public, or automobile editors. It has therefore been determined that, at minimum, all publicly available (as opposed to internal documents) support K->A-body, and since it is Wikipedia's job to document what the outside world thinks, not what YOU think, at a mininum, both need to be documented. You are not in a position to judge that Allpar, Partstrain, Consumer Guide, the Chrysler catalog, and 100 years of American cars are wrong. You are guilty of the same faulty analysis of (F-14 guy whose name has been withheld) and later admitted he was in error with the mediator. You're job is to report what they said. Please show me what section of WP allows you to remove edits sourced by 3 websites and 2 books, all publically accessible? If you continue to replaced sourced edits with unsourced information, rather than integrating new information, I shall be forced to report you to administrators, and do even more research, which you evidently are no capable of doing outside of that one document you dug up. You have still not identified what you original source was. Did you make it up, or did you get that information that way you were supposed to get it, from somewhere else??matador300 07:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You may see one internal document not meant for public eyes and 2 books and 3 websites with another view as meaning that 2 books, 3 websites, Apolloboy, Bull-dozer, and wiarthurhu are wrong.

I see, on the basis of my previous experience with shoddy Wikipedia research standards, that there is a way that none of these documents contradict another. As 50 years explains, the program was started to replace the K-cars. Then planners decided to NOT replace the Reliant, at least not right off the bat. Thus the statement to dealers that it will replace the car just departed, not the K-car. So it didn't replace the Reliant, at least not right away. But that doesn't change that it was originally intended to replace the K car, or the standard catalog observation the Spirit sales were the reason K car sales were terminated mid-season.

For the currently policed position(and the history has shown this to be the policed position within a few months of the creation of the article, mostly by two editors) to be correct, we have to accept (a) that EVERY publiclly available book and website outside of the Wikipedia is incorrect because a certain infallible editor said so, and (b) it is the job of Wikipedia to document what every book and website site outside of WP states, not any original research that might conclude that every book and website is wrong.

So, empowered by truth, justice, and God, I hereby declare this issue changed on the basis of new information and new blood. Things are going to change around here. People are going to get some manners, they're going to be shown how to do real research, going to the library or buying books or watching videos, and how to do non-faulty logic like not deciding that if source a does not say b, then not(b) must be true, and there are going to be fewer and fewer cases where Wikipedia editors are able to categorically dismiss every source and citation contrary to an editor's POV or OR. And there will be no tolerance for bullies at all. You will be nice, or else. You will all be like that aviation fellow who no longer reverts anything somebody else writes in 10 minutes or less with impolite remarks.

• Fifty Years of American Automobiles, the editors of Consumer Guide, Beekman House 1989, p. 335."It was conceived to replace the remarkable Reliant, but sales strength prompted corporate planners to let the new and the old run side by side, much as Volare and Valiant"
• [1] "the Ks, for their final year, were allowed to share the showroom floor with their replacement model, the larger A-body Spirit"
• Dodge Spirit Parts when it was time for (K-cars) to be replaced...introduced its Extended K (EK) in two cars, the Dodge Spirit and the Plymouth Acclaim.
• "Standard Catalog of Chrysler 1924-1990 by John Lee" "Acclaim..Reliant's A-body replacement arrived a little late..up to six with an optional front bench"
• Consumer Guide "Dodge's compact Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim were longer in wheelbase than Aries/Reliant, which they replaced."

Have a nice day, and God bless you. Remember, the good guys always win in the end. Watch Sky High, and figure out which team you identify with. --matador300 08:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler Corporation built the cars in question. Their statement on lineage, therefore, is authoritative—especially as their statement matches observable fact with regards to the dimensions and EPA size classifications of the cars in question. To repeat the cite given in talk:Dodge Spirit, since you ignored it there and are choosing to ignore it here, it is in Chrysler Corporation Master Technician Service Conference book, "New Model Service Highlights '89". It goes into detail on body and mechanical differences in the 1989 Chrysler Corp. vehicle lineup. Pages 2 and 3 cover Shadow/Sundance, and the first two sentences on page 2 are "Shadow and Sundance are the new compact hatches. They offer about the same size and capacity as the outgoing Aries and Reliant, but with much more efficient packaging. At first glance, you won't recognize them as hatchbacks!" Pages 4 and 5 (and the end of a paragraph on page 6) are devoted to the new-for-1989 Spirit and Acclaim. The first sentence of the introductory passage to this section reads as follows: "Spirit and Acclaim are the new midsize sedans, replacing 600 and Caravelle." The rest of the book discusses the C-bodies, airbags and new starters and alternators for the M-bodies, various turbo engine availability and spec changes, new fuel injection for the V8 trucks and vans, and other new-for-'89 stuff. I called DDS and they no longer offer availability on this or any other 1989 MTSC books (not surprising, they don't keep them for very long; they are published for use in update training sessions for service techs). If you want a copy for yourself, watch eBay; occasionally a service tech who has kept his MTSC books over the years clears them out.

Quality of citations is arguably more important than quantity. Even the best of your third-party cites (the ConsumerGuide book) is considerably weaker in provenance and veracity. Allpar is like Wikipedia, except without any of the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place that tend to cull bad info and guide articles towards factual correctness. Anyone can write anything for Allpar; the site owner, whom I've known for many years, is too busy to check factual veracity. For that reason, Allpar is full of erroneous assertions; it only gets better in small fits and starts when someone writes in with correct information. Not only that, but backing up your assertions with canned text grabbed off of a parts sales website, of all things, is beyond schlock. Websites selling aftermarket replacement parts for cars are not credible sources. Wiarthurhu, your argument is tantamount to "But, my view is in more books than yours!" (Or, "But, I read it on more websites than you did!"). Such arguments always lose in the face of authoritative statements from the creator of whatever is under discussion, even when that statement contradicts what you think you read and/or think you understood from somewhere. We have here an excellent illustration of the basic flaws of any effort to retell a sequence of events after they occur: Once a fact (or factoid) gets uttered or printed or posted, it gets repeated and cited as authoritative regardless of its veracity. Errors are thus propagated and imbued with increased levels of baseless veracity. I emphasize my intent is not to deride ConsumerGuide's publications as useless or fatally flawed or riddled with errors or anything of the sort, but a statement's inclusion in those publications does not necessarily imply veracity. This combined with the extreme weakness of some of your cites for the "Acclaim replaced Reliant" view (e.g. aftermarket parts vendors' websites) points up the need to evaluate sources' quality, not just their quantity. This is not a majority-rules vote or popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of sources supporting his assertion, it is an effort to create an accurate encyclopædia entry. Chrysler Corp. made the cars. Therefore, their statement on the matter is authoritative, no matter how many contradicting third-party cites you can dig up in a marathon Google session.

Fact is, upon the cessation of one product range and the introduction of another not containing substantially identical vehicles, there will exist debate over lineage such as the one we're pointlessly rehashing now. In the face of observable facts and objective measurements, supported by the manufacturer's own statement on the matter, your insistence that you're correct suggests that for you, this debate is no longer about striving for accuracy and has become more about feeding your ego, which is not an appropriate motivation for editing Wikipedia articles.

The Acclaim replaced the Caravelle, and that has not only been thoroughly demonstrated by detailed comparison of the actual cars' sizes, weights, interior volumes, equipment levels and suchlike, but also confirmed by information in a publication produced by the manufacturer, which means that is now the standard for further sources on the matter. If you can find anywhere Chrysler Corporation states the Acclaim replaced the Reliant, by all means please post it here and the matter can be revisited seriously. Continuing to claim you're correct and the vehicle manufacturer is wrong is intellectually dishonest, so please stop doing it now. Scheinwerfermann 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiarthurhu Vandalism

Wiarthurhu, your behaviour is uncoöperative and not helpful. In your edit of 03:34, 2006 July 30, you comment It's been finally determined what the whole picture is. But, this so-called "determination" is nothing but your own baseless speculation on what, when and why decisions were made within Chrysler Corp regarding the 1989 model lineup, possibly based on a creative interpretation of something you think you read in a 3rd-party document. That's not even original research, that's just revisionist fabrication out of whole cloth. You do seem to have some selective difficulty reading what is put before you, e.g. your demand for direct and full quotes from the Chrysler Corp 1989 MTSC book, despite my having done exactly that both here and in talk:Dodge Spirit well before you posted your demand.

Your complaint of the MTSC book being "not available to the public" is without merit—I got my copy off eBay, for example, and there is a copy in the Detroit Public Library's automotive literature collection. Your convenient local public library may not contain every document in the world, and that is certainly regrettable. However, the unavailability of any particular document at any public library does not mean that document is unpublished or unavailable to the public. The fact remains, Chrysler Corporation built the cars in question, so their statement of model lineage is authoritative.

Furthermore, your continued assertion is inappropriate and incorrect that your edits are of greater value and/or veracity than those of what you call "amateur" editors. Here on Wikipedia, there is no such distinction as you wish there to be. Your edits, in short, are of no greater or lesser value on here than are those of any other editor.

I would add that you may want to look carefully at your behaviour in general on Wikipedia. It seems your almost every edit sparks a controversy which you evidently take delight in escalating. That is really not helpful to the goal of Wikipedia, which is not to aggrandize yourself, but to strive for articles of the greatest possible veracity, accuracy and precision. Scheinwerfermann 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DELETING SOURCED CONTENT

Please post

• your original source for your belief that the Shadow was designed to replace the Aries, not the Spirit if it wasn't this internal document
• another external source supporting this position. Standard Catalog in fact mentions both positions (Spirit replaced 600 AND Acclaim replaced Reliant, but Spirit was the reason Aries was dropped) and is not self-contradicting.
• the WP rule that empowers you to removed sourced conent
• your credentials naming you King Of The Hill for this article
• your credentials demonstrating that you are right, and the rest of the world (every website and every book outside of WP) is wrong
• proof that the Fifty Years scenario, also repeated in the Standard Catalog that the cars were designed to replace the K cars, but told the dealers they only replaced the extended length cars because the K cars would not be retired immediately is wrong. You have not done so, logic is that if the dealer document is correct, it does NOT disprove that all 5 other sources are therefore wrong
• WP rule showing that if all sources outside WP are wrong, they are to be deleted immediately without discussion.
• if the 5 sources are wrong, isn't it the job of WP to at least note that along with some reasoning as to why they might be called wrong

--matador300 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, the service manual Scheinwerfermann also says the Shadow replaced the Aries. Second, there is no rule removing sourced content. If sourced material is irrevelant or proved wrong by a first party source, then it's perfectly fine to remove the sourced material in question. Third, nobody said anyone was "King Of The Hill" of this article. Nobody has the right to own articles. Fourth, nobody needs credentials to win a debate, reliable sources and good reasoning are the essentials to winning a debate. And finally, for example, if the Car Corporation says Model 1 replaced Model 2 and not Model 3, then we must go by what the manufacturer says, not by third party sources like ConsumerGuide or Consumer Reports. --ApolloBoy 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM AND REVERTING

Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism.

If a user makes an addition which you consider POV or generally bad, rather than revert them and hope not to be reverted again, a more productive option is to move their content to the article's talk page where it can be discussed.

While the content is still removed from the article, it is a less harsh move because the content is still viewable outside of history, and is more easily referenced in discussi

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism.

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2006 July 31 (UTC).

[edit] Compromise

I offer this comprimise. I will likely accept any reasonable edit that acknowledges and integrates the position of two reference books and 3 websites that k->Acclaim. It's simply not reasonable to dismiss reference books as unreliable, or even if they are, delete that information from the article. Please formulate such an edit, and I will let you know what I think. Let's do this on the talk page rather than, contrary to WP policy, slugging it out on the main page. --matador300 00:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu, that is very adult of you. Good show. However, you do not have the authority to request or require that edits be submitted for your approval; that is not how Wikipedia works. I have inserted NPOV compromise text in the body of the article and placed Reliant together with Caravelle in the infobox' "predecessor" section. Scheinwerfermann 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article header image

I have reverted to the fair-use image of the 1991 Acclaim LE for the article header. While it is a general guideline that GFDL images are prefereable to fair-use ones, it is counterproductive to replace a fair-use image of good quality with a GFDL image of poor quality and/or questionable provenance. Yes, it's easy to find pictures of Plymouth Acclaims with a Google™ search, but using those isn't wikikosher. At the same time, an out-of-focus picture taken from odd angle, showing an Acclaim crammed in amongst numerous other cars, just is not encyclopædic. Let's try to take a photo of comparable quality and similar composition to the fair-use image, then we can replace it satisfactorily. --Scheinwerfermann 15:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use should only be used "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". That is not the case with Plymouth Acclaim pictures, is it? So until someone go and take a good picture of an Acclaim, we should us the "poor quality" fotos. --Boivie 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would sort of hinge on the interpretation of the word "equivalent" and the phrase "the same information". We've got a judgement call to make here; from where I sit there is little or no harm in using the fair-use image until a high-quality GFDL image can be created. --Scheinwerfermann 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only fair use when there is no equivalent. When an equivalent exists, it's not fair use. At least, that's my understanding from the fine print in the red box. IFCAR 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the question of "equivalence" doesn't have a clear yes/no answer. --Scheinwerfermann 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously a good picture of an Acclaim "could be created". --Boivie 06:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)