Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Changing the thesis of the lead....

...and by strong implication, the article as a whole,is not "Fix[ing] typo; Fix[ing] grammar." Anmccaff (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced synthesis, used tendentiously.

The alleged conspiracy did, however, impact to some extent on all five of the largest current metropolitan areas in the USA.

This is neither attributed nor attributable to any respectable source, nor is it so obviously true as to be unremarkable; that's what Wiki calls Wikipedia:SYNTH.

It is also either untrue, or remarkably sloppy usage: "impact" meant to "hit,'" literally or metaphorically; it presumes a blow severe enough to have an effect. Using it here without proof is what rhetoricians call begging the question.

Finally, the deleted assertion begs the question in another way: it assumes, again without any attribution, that there is some particular line of cause and effect. Given that the MMSA's have changed over time, it is entirely possible that simple expansion of MMAs would inevitably take in some number of GM-connected areas. Anmccaff (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this. The article documents that affected communities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland. The List of Combined Statistical Areas shows those places are in the number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 positions on that list. Pot calling the kettle black on POV oriented words. The crux of your entire POV, again inserted into as many sentences as you can possibly imagine, has been to negate the affect of this conspiracy. In governmental terms, any change from the normal course of events is an impact. We have a conviction for conspiracy related to the purchase of mass transit systems in these cities. That indicates that this is not the normal course of events and thus clearly has had an impact. Trackinfo (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We've been through this. The article documents that affected communities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland.

New York? No. The article documents real indirect GM connections with one medium-sized player in what became metro New York, with absolutely no conspiratorial aspects, at least on the private side. Los Angeles? No. LATL expanded post-war electric traction; the LARy was planning, and had applied for permission to abandon most of it. Chicago? Not at all. Where's the conspiracy? Baltimore? A case can be made, but it's far from clear. Oakland? Oakland had already decided to remove the rails -before- NCL came in; the cite is in the archived talk, IMS.

What's more important, this is what a raft of credible scholars say, and that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect, even if the cranks with websites might outnumber them.

In governmental terms, any change from the normal course of events is an impact.

Even were this were true, and it ain't, really, where's the change from the normal course of events? Every rich developed country moved away from street rail, more or less at the same time, and more or less for the same reasons. Trams were all but extinct in London and Paris years ahead of New York and DC. Whether this was, or was always, a good idea is a separate question.

We have a conviction for conspiracy related to the purchase of mass transit systems in these cities.

No. Only related to two of the five, and the "impact" on electric traction was positive, so much so that a couple reputable local historians, and a whole flotilla of cranks, claimed it was a SEEKRIT SmOKEscReen!!!!! Well, the cranks did, anyhow. The Fitz's used all of LARy's serviceable stuff, and bought a considerable amount more in LA. This was neither altruism nor camouflage, though; they could, and did, make money with it, so they did so for about 15 years.

Next, of course, the conviction had nothing to do with bus vs. electric, but bus vs. bus. There is no single example of a trolley line taken out of GM's watch, at it were, that couldn't be justified by simple economics, except, possibly, Beaumont, TX. Anmccaff (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mid-20th-century decline of trolleys not limited to North America

I'm not sure if this needs to be addressed in this article or not, but I'm throwing it out there FWIW. It's often overlooked that the traction based transit systems of cities in many countries were supplanted by motor buses. It would be interesting to know what the driving --Hah! A little joke--force behind this trend was, given that most overseas countries were well behind the U.S. in car ownership, whether because of high fuel taxes or because of low average standards of living.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not overlooked elsewhere, of course, but yeah, the average conspirophile telling wouldn't suggest that London and Paris lost their streetcars well before Washington, D.C., for instance.

Most of the reasons are alluded to in the article -changes in paving methods; increasing numbers of drivers; political difficulties between cities traction companies and unions, labor disputes, cheaper buses -most conspiracists can't wrap their minds around the fact that the bus...or rather, the "motor coach"...was the luxury vehicle in many markets, costing double the trolley's nickel (This might be the reason for the (dying) expression "It only costs a nickel more to go first class."); inflation; the regulatory framework; suburbanization....

What doesn't show enough in the article now, though, is externalities, in the economic sense. Real as some of the benefits of street railways can be, the public didn't pay for them, the individual companies did, and that's a recipe for disaster. This was true even when public agencies owned the railways, since an agency could be tasked with services it was not paid to perform. Anmccaff (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The phrase 'Conspiracy theorists' is back

I note that with this edit Anmcaff has again introduced the term 'conspiracy theorist' to the article, despite guidance during the recent dispute resolution process (see Holding 1 and Holding 2) that the term should not be used unless supported by reliable references. I am going to leave a note on his talk page asking him to address this even though I note that he never agreed to abide by this guidance. There are other major changes to the article which I could contest, but am staying out of this article for the time being. PeterEastern (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a specific objection to the phrase used about this author, about this particular subject -the Hertz Omnibus lines- then please state it. Anmccaff (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My objection is that you appear to be ignoring clear guidance from the dispute resolution process, which in this case it does indeed relate to Hertz. My point is however a more general one and I am inviting you to consider reviewing your change. I am not going to get drawn into a detailed discussion in this instance though. PeterEastern (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if anyone else can think of a better descriptor for the less reality-centric believers in Big Conspiracy -Snell, Black, Kunstler, Kay &cet- I'd be happy to use it, but this is a distinction that needs to be drawn. Anmccaff (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. There definitely was a conspiracy between allied interests to form NCL (does anybody disagree?) There definitely is a theory that their actions destroyed the trolley systems that they purchased (does anybody disagree?) There is no proof that that was the intention or the effect of their actions (the court cases were against the movement to replace the trolleys with goods and services supplied solely by the NCL interests to create a monopoly). There's a conspiracy, a theory, and it's not proven. "Conspiracy theory" seems to be the best description. If this is seen as discrediting unproven or disproven ideas, then so be it. RussNelson (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

But there are some problems. First, the simple factual one.

There definitely was a conspiracy between allied interests to form NCL (does anybody disagree?)

Yes, I strongly disagree. The Fitzgeralds organized NCL with fairly minimal help from Yellow in 1936. The actions that ran afoul of the Sherman Act began in '38. NCL was a natural outgrowth from the earlier Fitzgerald interests, not a "conspiracy."

The big problem, which you appear not to even notice, is that "conspiracy theorist" is a loaded phrase, and has implications beyond that of the words that it comprises. It's an entirely appropriate one for this author, but the article has to be careful not to paint with too wide a brush. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Very well, then there was a conspiracy between allied interests not to form NCL, but instead to aid NCL in replacing trolleys with buses. Do you still disagree with that statement?

Yes, of course "conspiracy theorist" implies a false theory, that the goal of the conspirators was to destroy the trolley system and profit from its replacement. Is there any evidence that the theory is true, beyond what has been proven in court, which is not sufficient to prove the theory?

It seems to me more than anything Black said, the problem is that people disagree on whether the intent of NCL was to destroy the trolleys and then replace them with buses, or whether the intent of NCL was to ensure that the allied interests' products would be chosen once the trolleys died. If the former, then it is not fair to say "conspiracy theorist" because the theory is true. If the latter, then "conspiracy theorist" is, pejorative as it is, is simply true. RussNelson (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cutting the intro down a bit

Do other people think the intro is tool long? It seems like it goes into a bit too much detail and could be perhaps 2/3rds as long. Thoughts?Springee (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I suspect this is one of the few areas of wide agreement. Wanna take a first chop? Anmccaff (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you insist that Edwin Black is a "conspiracy theorist?"

Anmccaff, on 29 June I changed the text to a more neutral phrasing. The same day you undid my change. Please justify this insistence. Gladiator Decimus Meridius (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed tags

I removed the tags from the start of the article. I'm not sure people will agree that the issues are all resolved but after 10 months I think the tags have gone stale. If people still feel there are significant issues please add the tags again but with the current date. Springee (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm still happier with them on, tell yah the truth, but I'm glad to see someone else showing back up. Anmccaff (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Black is not a conspiracy theorist

Anmccaff - Do not restore this statement about him, it is pejorative, it is a BLP violation. It will not stand. I'm not kidding. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. As you should be aware, there are a great many reviews of Black's work that emphasize his questionable scholarship and his tendency to use "the Day-Glo paint of the potboiler", not the "subtle hues of genuine scholarship", to give but one expression of it. As you should also be aware, Black took Snell's possibly mendacious and certainly sloppy scholarship seriously and literally, and read conspiracy into most aspects of transportation history in the twentieth century. Most of his (now largely self-published?) works which he sees as non-fiction are based on a conspiratorial mindset. It's not perjorative, it's an accurate description.

Next, this is not a BLP, this is a critique of writing, and there's a good many cites to back it.

Finally, if you feel this word too harsh, what would you suggest that reflects Black's non-mainstream position in transit scholarship, and alludes to his penchant for seeing conspirators under every rock? Anmccaff (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It very much is a BLP violation to refer to living writer Edwin Black as a "conspiracy theorist." This matter has already been raised with you by another editor above in this thread and here it is again. Your 200+ edits on this piece do not give you ownership rights over it, nor are you somehow excused from following WP policy regarding Neutral Point of View (which the text I have changed violates) and the Biographies of Living Persons Policy (which the text which I have changed also violates). If you insist on edit warring over your text — which another revert would constitute, as far as I'm concerned — strap on your helmet for a thread at Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, because that's where you will be heading. Your choice whether you can live with NPOV phrasing or want to have a spotlight shined on your agenda here. Carrite (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Bonewah, PeterEastern, Spearmind, Springee, Gladiator Decimus Meridius... Carrite (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging Trackinfo... Carrite (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging Capitalismojo... Carrite (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging Pithecanthropus4152... Carrite (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging Mark v1.0... Carrite (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Pinging RussNelson... Carrite (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Link to BLP of BLP violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons --Mark v1.0 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Black has documents not theories , if Black only had theories he would have been sued for the books he has written. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Only people with standing to sue can sue. If they are uninterested or unable to sue, then a lack of a lawsuit is not evidence in favor of his theories. An absence of evidence is not evidence. RussNelson (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This pejorative is just the tip of the iceberg of what Anmccaff has done to this article since he took ownership of it. Since that time, only his opinion and those who support it maters, other opinions are discounted, removed and perjured. This is just one example. If you go back to the article before Anmccaff got involved, you will see the content has essentially reversed itself under his total domination of every edit here, based on a few sources and largely on his very pushy, dominant opinion. Fixing even a single, POV pushing word turns into an extended argument. Welcome to the fray. It is a lost cause at this point. One of my most frustrating experiences on wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The irony of someone groundlessly accusing another of "perjury" in a thread about "perjorative" writing is exquisite, and will doubtless be dealt with by the wikipowers-that-be here as the dispute goes forward.

That said, since no one yet has offered anything but opinion and handwaving, I'll let this rest until some of the other writitors summoned have a chance to get here. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So the accusation is clear, what you have done is (with virtually no facts) discredited the credibility of any source with a dissenting opinion to yours, thus perjuring the evidence. That is a technique you have used repeatedly. Trackinfo (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea if Black is or is not a conspiracy theorist. I don't know my BLP rules that well so the best I can say is perhaps there is a way to rephrase this to make both sides happy. If there is reliable source that says Black's account is a conspiracy theory then I assume it wouldn't violate BLP to state his theory is considered as such. I think calling him a conspiracy theorist would be treading in BLP waters. That doesn't mean it can't be said but just that we need to follow those rules. If we can't find the sources needed to make such a claim then I think we should default to less inflammatory language. I do struggle with how to present contested conspiracies as I was recently dealing just with such a case. I think the best method is to default to using attributed quotes (rather than WP voice) and more neutral phrasing if there is a dispute about a claim. I'm generally sympathetic to Amccaff's POV on this article. I think the evidence and common sense arguments against the theory are strong but that is my OR opinion and doesn't mean we should overlook guidelines. Springee (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd not call him a conspiracy theorist and I'd go with the Carrite version below. I'm speaking as someone not all that up Edwin Black (I read his Wikipedia article just now and googled him a little) or the subject of this article. But let's talk about the term "conspiracy theorist". Black might be a a "conspiracy theorist" in the sense that Charlize Theron is an "African-American" or Rihanna is a "singer-songwriter". It might be literally true that he theorizes about conspiracies, but come on. It's misleading and furthermore it's a dog whistle, and you know it's misleading and a dog whistle and I know it everyone else reading this knows it, so give it up. The dog whistle is "he's either a nut case or a charlatan", which you get by lumping him in this category, which includes the people whom we actually think of when the term "conspiracy theorist" is bandied about: David Icke (who seriously believes that the Queen is a reptile, for chrissakes) and Art Bell and Erich von Däniken Chris Murphy and Ben Carson and so on. Edwin Black is like none of those people. That doesn't mean he's necessarily a beau idéal of journalism or that he's right about this, or anything. But he's not a madman or charlatan, so let's not imply that he is. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• No dogs, no whistling: Black resembles, on this and other issues, Mssrs. Icke and von Daniken: he vectors ideas well outside the norm of respectable scholarship. No serious transit scholar believes that the anti-streetcar movement in New York had anything particular to do with GM; it predated it. Populists, roughly, were up in arms against the streetcar companies from the turn of the century, and saw them in oddly conspiratorial terms. All, each, and every one of Black's alleged non-fiction books concerns conspiracy, usually described in somewhat sensationalist terms. (Black, BTW, is one of the few vectors of the Oswald-as-hero Chicago Kennedy conspiracy.) So, whether he is on the road to von Danekin -and his involvement in "restitution" cases suggests that is a possibility, or on the road to reptiles is a moot point; he's off on that end of the scale.

There are no decent scholars who suggest that New York's streetcars were targeted by bus-men in the '20s. None. As soon as Hertz's operation got hold of the streetcars, they did exactly what the previous operator had done: ran out their depreciation until forced by the city government to get rid of them, assisted by the WPA, which paid for removing the track. Hertz's operation in Chicago went nowhere that the streetcars and trackless trolleys did, and vice versa, and again, there are simply no reputable scholarly sources that buy this aspect of the story...but Black laps it up, and dishes it out.

Now looking at Mr Icke, I see the article manages to avoid saying "kook" or "con" outright, and I suppose Black is owed at least that, but whatever word or phrase is chosen has to reflect his dubiety in this context. Anmccaff (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the words which Carrite prefers, it seems to me to be an acknowledgement that Black is a conspiracy theorist. First, it acknowledges that there is a conspiracy. Second, it acknowledges that the theory remains unproven ("alleged"). If someone theorizes that there is a conspiracy AND the evidence is lacking to prove it, why not call them a conspiracy theorist? It is simply the most accurate description, where "writer" misses the point: that the theory is, by all evidence, bunk. It seems to me like the people who want that phrase not to be used are the ones who should come up with citations to scholars who agree with him. Lacking such, the description is apt and should stand. RussNelson (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice an alert to me about this subject earlier in this section. To be honest Anmcaff has defeated me and I am taking a break from WP editing for a time as a result. I also note that he continues to introduce the term 'conspiracy theorist' into this article despite instruction during a past dispute resolution that the term should not be used unless supported by reliable references (see Holding 1 and Holding 2) Personally I think Anmcaff is well past the point where his disruption of WP exceeds any positive contribution to the project and he should be banned. From his talk page I notice that he is getting into trouble on a range of articles and subjects. In in the mean time it is good to see that others are still on the case! PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the line in question. Carrite (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anmccaff version: Conspiracy theorists such as Edwin Black connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy. Carrite version: Some writers such as Edwin Black connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy. footnote

Dear Friends It has been suggested by a Wikipedian that I cross-post this message from the Talk page at Edwin Black ... here for the GM Conspiracy Talk Page. So I did a straight cut and paste, editing out any materials not relevant to this topic. If this should be done a different way with a link, I hope someone will assist as I am novice at this matters. If I failed to edit out off-topic content, pls help. The relevant cross-post follows:

At this location you will see scans from Autophobia, which I have just reread. http://www.edwinblack.com/uploads/cmimg_77212.pdf

I did this because of the following sentence in which my name is used and which became a contentious Talk page item due to the words "conspiracy theorist” and “writers” Some writers such as Edwin Black connect Hertz's New York and Chicago bus enterprises with an alleged larger conspiracy.

The pith of the sentence is that the Hertz bus enterprises were connected to the larger GM conspiracy, and that various writers such as myself have made that assertion. This information is false and the footnote citation is fallacious. In the attached scan, you will see Autophobia excerpts. Autophobia is not a historical work involving archival and institutional records and files, such as my own. Rather, as self-described on the inside back cover attached, the book is a "cultural commentary." As such, it is mainly one man's cultural take on secondary and tertiary works – and to Brian Ladd’s credit he did review many. However, I seem to be the only investigator who has actually gone into the archives and prosecution records, which is why my work Internal Combustion has achieved the status it has. I actually examine the files.

Now, if we look on Autophobia Page 212, the footnote citation listed in Wikipedia for the contentious sentence in question, we see my name is shown in a footnote mentioned along with many other esteemed historians debating the theory of whether the criminal wrongdoing which received the conviction for conspiracy, was sufficient to cause the later demise of the streetcar. I doubt that there can be any debate over whether a trial and conviction occurred. But did that criminality cause the collapse. Some theorize yes, and some no. My book Internal Combustion on 260 gives my statement: GM may have killed some important fraction of mass transit. But the policymakers who let it happen—they got away with murder. Hence my book quantifies the damage as an important “fraction” and raises the issue of many other policy implications – which is what the debate entails. As usual, I leave it to the reader. Further, you will notice nowhere in the footnote on Autophobia Page 212 and nowhere on the referred chapter text pp.156-157, which I have also appended, is the name "Hertz" mentioned.

I searched through the book and could not find the name Hertz. Please see the linked Autophobia Index, with no entry for Hertz. That is because Hertz is not connected to the GM conviction for conspiracy, as Hertz sold its bus companies to General Motors a decade earlier. This conclusion echoes my initial emailed comments to many that Hertz is simply not connected to the National City Lines debacle. Hertz is connected to General Motors a decade earlier in the same way that the ankle is connected to the hip bone as long as you first go through a tibia, fibula, a knee, and a femur.

To suggest that the Hertz buses of a decade earlier were connected to a prosecuted monopolistic conspiracy in the late 30s and 40s is to actually deceive the reader into thinking that the whole idea is indeed a far-out stretch. What is the far-out stretch is the assertion that Hertz was connected. Hertz was not connected. It appears that this effort to create this impression was not accidental, perhaps assuming that no one would check the actual reference of this obscure book, which trade sales records indicate sold very few copies. I bought a copy a few days ago on Amazon for one penny. However, obscure or not, I check references the way other people routinely have breakfast. This is what I do. After I typed the above this message, yesterday shortly after noon, I held a ten minute telephone call with Brian Ladd, the author of Autophobia. The following emerged from our discussion:

Ladd was at first generally unaware of my book, Internal Combustion, as his 2008 book probably went to bed shortly after mine came out in 2006. (Ordinarily, a book is one year in gestation from manuscript completion.) I referred Ladd to his footnote on Page 212, and with his recollection refreshed he remarked as follows: 1. He, by no means, contests the fact that General Motors was tried for conspiracy. His intent was to explore the debate over whether those federally-prosecuted actions were significant enough to impact the demise of street cars. To that point, some theorized yes and some theorized no. My thought is there were many factors of which the criminal conduct was a fraction. 2. Ladd was explicit that there was no attempt to label me "a conspiracy theorist." 3. He confirmed that while he did no archival work for his volume, his main effort was to address the shrill voices on either side of the question of the trolley demise issue. He confirmed in that vein that his book was a cultural commentary as the jacket copy states. 4. Tellingly, Ladd did not know that Hertz had bus companies and his book never dealt with Hertz in text or footnote. Yet Ladd’s book on p.212 is cited in Wikipedia as the basis for a groundless assertion about Hertz, attributed to me and others.

I cannot debate an anonymous personality. In my field, writers use their own name and take lifetime responsibility for what they write. But I believe the tenor of the Talk comments speak for themselves vis a vis BLP. I know that bias, unverified so-called original research –unsourced and unverifiable, misleading statements asserted as concrete facts, and false citations have no place in Wikipedia. The community will know how take its normal internal measures when they see open derision, groundless revision, and lack of precision. I think the comments made by PeterEastern on December 15 2015 – I do not know him/her – Carrite, and many others should be taken into consideration. Please do not communicate with me via WP, but my web page is open to all. I wish the WP community continued progress in its climb toward excellence and the will to increase its best attributes. Yours, edwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Black author (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here as an uninvolved administrator. It seems to me that calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" without any detailed justification in the form of reliable sources is an obvious BLP violation and can't be allowed. This description of a historian is obviously pejorative and obviously intended to be pejorative. So don't do it. You folks should also look into the claim made by Mr Black that the source doesn't even mention Hertz. Certainly it is not mentioned on the linked page. Looking elsewhere in this article I see multiple violations of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR with opinions stated in Wikipedia's voice and arguments constructed by Wikipedia editors. For example in the first part of the "Myths and mysteries" section, claims made in 1995 are "debunked" by use of newspaper articles from 1935 and 1914, at least one of which doesn't even appear to be on the right topic and is provided as "irony". This type of editing is explicitly forbidden, and those of you who don't understand that should stop editing long enough to read Wikipedia's policy pages. Zero^talk 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome Zero. I peeked at your user page and see some of your topic interests. For this reason, you may be interested in the edited remainder of my post with clear linkage to this matter. See the Dec 23 2015 entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edwin_Black . Further ... I glanced at the contentious and fatiguing back and forth in the GM Streetcar Talk page above. I say glanced because the whole thing was long long and unreadable for its persistent unneeded combativeness in the face of reasonableness by various editors. Indeed, I am amazing at the tone of some of the posts which include snide and ad hominems -- and in general speak for themselves for their tenor. Knowing this GM topic well, having written books and provided many lectures on transportation and energy history for a decade, and knowing the specific secondary and tertiary sources bandied about in this seemingly endless exchange, and having interviewed some of the personalities including Snell and St. Clair, I must say I agree with PeterEastern and several others. The overtaken article is now extremely partisan, featuring cherry-picked and sometimes distorted information with sources that are questionable to say the least. We see the false use of Autophobia to drag Hertz into the public article, claiming through a footnote that either author Brian Ladd on p212, I, or any other historian wrote something to justify Hertz coming in to create a bizarre conspiracy claim that does not exist -- except in this article. While I know virtually all of the cited references seen above, I cannot contribute to the article content. My posts (and new account I created) were necessitated only because my name was being used to justify the false allegation against Hertz, and also because other things were said about me in the realm of BLP both here and on the Edwin Black Talk page, especially vis a vis my mother, as duly and repeatedly noted by several others. Know this, I am a person who writes and researches all day every day. I need WP. Just yesterday, I accessed 18 articles on WP on topics as diverse as Saudi desert birds to fortress construction. All of us need WP to be the gem it has painstakingly become. Once a staunch critic of WP, as some might remember, I now see WP as a matured and invaluable asset for good (still improving). The GM article as transformed is not in that spirit or quality. It should start over if it can and rely upon the non-partisan contributions of those that initially made it useful. Not me -- but others. yours, edwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Black author (talk • contribs) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that Anmccaff has reintroduced the term 'conspiracy theorist' into this article (associated by WP:SYN to Hertz) without any reference to support it, despite clear guidance not to do so during an earlier dispute resolution process (see Holding 1 and Holding 2). It is my view that he has been causing havoc to this article (and others on WP I believe) for months and doesn't seem to have learnt anything in the process. Please can we remove his persons editing rights? PeterEastern (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

Pls excuse formatting errors --Edwin Black author (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I've been urged to comment about the current status of this article especially in view of a Dec 15 2015 comment by PeterEastern. As a voracious consumer of Wikipedia content who does not post, but as one who also has a molecular understanding of the sources being cited--and distorted—in this GM article, here are my thoughts.

As it stands now, the article is vastly too unreadable and too detailed and solely for the purpose of arguing a very partisan and highly debatable point of view. I see pivotal material unsourced or falsely sourced. There have been false entries. Prior commentators have rightly stated that the article has been hijacked or taken over. Apparently, the goodwill and good intentions of informed and nonpartisan editors, such as PeterEastern--who I do not know and have never communicated with, he is only one, are being overwhelmed by what has been rightly called bullying over argumentation, ceaseless debate, and in general, the wearing down of honest volunteers who cannot spend most of their lives incessantly repairing one article. In this regard, my attention was drawn to this comment as far back as a year ago: “we have felt bullied and pushed aside.”

I have previously shown that a reference to Hertz, cited to Page 212 of Autophobia, was not only fallacious, but my interview with author Brian Ladd indicated that it could not even be surmised from his work as Ladd stated he had no knowledge that Hertz even owned buses. Yet, this citation was the lynchpin for inserting Hertz’s name and the concept of conspiracy theorists. Nor did author Ladd intend to label other writers as "conspiracy theorists" solely because they have correctly reported the prosecutions of GM and others for criminal conspiracy. Rather, Ladd was analyzing the debated theory of whether the prosecuted criminal conspiracy was indeed responsible for the demise of the trolleys. Know this: the ultimate demise of the trolleys involved matters of urban sprawl, two wars, lots of federal legislation, and many other factors, not just the prosecuted criminal conspiracy involving streetcars. GM’s action were a factor. Not THE factor.

The fallacious entry involving Page 212 of Autophobia was posted for anyone to check, and none of this information was contradicted in any way by any person. Moreover, I continue to see statements, comments, references, and facts twisted or repeated erroneously … all to suit a highly argumentative point of view. I wonder if anyone has thought about the reaction of the Hertz Corporation should they discover that their name has been dragged into a prosecuted criminal conspiracy--and for the first time--and one which is absolutely without merit. I have zero connection to Hertz, but I have an abundant connection to truthful reporting.

I also did some checking on the contributions of Guy Span, who has previously been cited in the talk page and footnotes for his expertise and, in many ways, chiefly for the denigration of other authors as "paranoid." Who is this Guy Span person? Several have challenged his authority and identity. Please see the bewildering entries below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Guy_Span Despite years of supposed expertise, “Guy Span” has an Internet footprint of only one basic article in 2 parts for Bay Crossing – a small local issue, http://www.baycrossings.com/about.php, and an identification in the correctly identified by others, that is Examiner.com which indeed is not the San Francisco Examiner which I have written for. Does anyone want to believe the long list of highly specific credentials under a fake name? This is what my Google search finds for Guy Span. Go check it. https://www.google.com/#q=%22Guy+Span%22 Where are lectures, continuing pseudonym-tagged articles, academic position, and published books? It has been remarked openly that this is a pseudonym. But it's not a pseudonym for a regular practitioner or writer in the field. I called the Bay Crossings and spoke to one of the publishing execs. The man told me that Guy Span was a pseudonym for someone who volunteered a few articles more than eight years ago in the Bay Area. No one in the office knew his correct name or is current whereabouts, and they haven't known for at least eight years. They theorized he had gone to the East Coast. Now, nothing against a guy who wants to take the pen name Guy Span. But with this exceptionally thin and highly partisan contribution to a local Bay Area paper eight years ago and nothing further, is this the pivotal source that Wikipedia wants to use for a report on criminal conduct involving some of America's greatest corporations and its coverage by various authors who are deemed paranoid?

In my own writing, I could never cite such a source. Indeed, when I cite a secondary source, I very frequently call the author to verify whether what was published is still factual as the author knows it. Using this method, I frequently find errors regretted after publication. For this reason, when I did my own book, I had numerous interviews with some of the main names bandied about in this article, including Snell, St. Clair, Schrag, and many others.

I'm just a reader, user and supporter of Wikipedia's growth. I'm not an administrator. I don't understand the many rules and regulations about banning, locking, etc. This note caught my eye: “It is my view that he has been causing havoc to this article (and others on WP I believe) for months and doesn't seem to have learnt anything in the process. Please can we remove his persons editing rights?” I also saw this December 15 2015 assessment that the “disruption of WP exceeds any positive contribution to the project” and calling for banning. I know personally of at least two articles which have been mistreated in this fashion. As I understand it, there are many more that other Wikipedians who have their own list of articles and exchanges.

The only way for Wikipedia to continue its climb toward excellence is to take action when it sees references misrepresented, combativeness, bullying, and a consistent wearing down of other editors who are giving of their time without compensation to make a better product … but who we now see give up in sheer frustration. Wikipedia administrators, now is the time to step forward. Yours, edwin--Edwin Black author (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy Span redux

EB>I also did some checking on the contributions of Guy Span, who has previously been cited in the talk page and footnotes for his expertise and, in many ways, chiefly for the denigration of other authors as "paranoid." Who is this Guy Span person? Several have challenged his authority and identity. Please see the bewildering entries below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#Guy_Span Despite years of supposed expertise, “Guy Span” has an Internet footprint of only one basic article in 2 parts for Bay Crossing – a small local issue, 

From a very, very brief skimming of Bay Crossings, I get an easy nine: The two "Paving the Way" pieces, "the Great UP Meltdown", "Fun and Games in Depreciation", "Big Fat Lies", " Amtrak Under the Gunn", "Aging Gracelessly: the Slow Decline of the Port, "Saving the Silver Slug", "So Where are they Now? The Story of the SF Steel Electrics", "Manly Tugboats of SF", and "The Steam Will Rise Again." All solid pieces, except the humor piece about tug names. One is reviewed, quite favorably, by the Society for Industrial Archaeology, one is cited in a MARAD report to Congress, another in an MIT piece on rail. Even pseudonymously, other experts accepted the expertise.

EB>"http://www.baycrossings.com/about.php, and an identification in the correctly identified by others, that is Examiner.com which indeed is not the San Francisco Examiner which I have written for. Does anyone want to believe the long list of highly specific credentials under a fake name?

Well, BART did. And Transdef.org did. And the Washington and Lee Journal of Engergy did. Odd, that.

EB>This is what my Google search finds for Guy Span. Go check it. https://www.google.com/#q=%22Guy+Span%22

Which, even in the first couple pages, will show far more than two relevant hits for most people.

EB>Where are lectures, continuing pseudonym-tagged articles, academic position, and published books? It has been remarked openly that this is a pseudonym. But it's not a pseudonym for a regular practitioner or writer in the field.

How would you be able to tell? BTW, of course it was "remarked openly;" there isn't any secret here to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of electric traction.

EB>I called the Bay Crossings and spoke to one of the publishing execs. The man told me that Guy Span was a pseudonym for someone who volunteered a few articles more than eight years ago in the Bay Area.

A good researcher would also have looked at the publication over time, and seen it was once a real player in the movement to restore ferry traffic, hence the name. Transit and transportaion expertise was a good deal more relevant then. As for "volunteered," I believe the publisher mentioned pay, but that is niether here nor there.

EB>No one in the office knew his correct name or is current whereabouts, and they haven't known for at least eight years. They theorized he had gone to the East Coast.  Now, nothing against a guy who wants to take the pen name Guy Span. But with this exceptionally thin and highly partisan contribution to a local Bay Area paper eight years ago and nothing further, is this the pivotal source that Wikipedia wants to use for a report on criminal conduct involving some of America's greatest corporations and its coverage by various authors who are deemed paranoid?

Yes, it might. It's not a bad overview. Not that I selected it, of course, perhaps the fellow who did would like to address this.

And the point about paranoia (and inaccuracy? What would you say about someone who wrote:

"Where these [anti-streetcar] measures were unavailing, [they] formed holding companies to [purchase] and motorize the railways directly. Thus, it helped organize and finance [UCMT] as a wholly owned GM subsidiary, as well as Greyhound, Rex Finance, Omnibus Corporation, National City Lines, Pacific City Lines, American City Lines, City Coach Lines, Manning Transportation and numerous other concerns, which acquired rail systems across the country, including those in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, San Diego and Oakland."

Now, you've mentioned that you feel that Mr Hertz, despite being a GM board member, and the operator of the buses that replaced the major North-South trolley lines, and manufactured the buses in question, had nothing to do with a GM plan to attack street rail in New York City. (Or were you just making a very narrow point about their uninvolvement in NCL? Even then, Hertz was a board member, and in charge of the company making and marketing the buses; of course he knew about NCL.) Oddly enough, I agree; Omnibus would have run the trolleys until the maintenance costs got out of line, most likely, and them might have switched to PCCs. The reason they switched when they did was LaGuardia hated streetcars, like almost every mayor before him, and the WPA was willing to take up the tracks gratis. So, whadda ya think of the statement above. Does it sound like a simple factual statement, or is their a certain shrill ring of contentious conspirophilia to it? Anmccaff (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are too much false facts above to rebut and open hostility to counter, as I am sure other Wikipedians have already concluded. I note a linked assemblage of false statements, half truths, and misdirection in a section for some reason linked to this discussion. See it above and below here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edwin_Black#Just_to_recap_here. To those such as PeterEastern and others who have given up, I sympathize. yours, edwin--Edwin Black author (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hertz

EB>I have previously shown that a reference to Hertz, cited to Page 212 of Autophobia, was not only fallacious, but my interview with author Brian Ladd indicated that it could not even be surmised from his work as Ladd stated he had no knowledge that Hertz even owned buses.

No. You proceeded on some assumptions that are false. It isn't necessary to see the name Hertz, only to see the reference to the New York systems that Hertz was involved with.

EB> Yet, this citation was the lynchpin for inserting Hertz’s name and the concept of conspiracy theorists.

No, you took it as such. Any of several cites could have done.

More importantly, You have entirely missed the fact that the section points out that Hertz became involved in NYC well before the NCL business, and faced considerable political pressure to switch to buses.

 EB> Nor did author Ladd intend to label other writers as "conspiracy theorists" solely because they have correctly reported the prosecutions of GM and others for criminal conspiracy. Rather, Ladd was analyzing the debated theory of whether the prosecuted criminal conspiracy was indeed responsible for the demise of the trolleys. Know this: the ultimate demise of the trolleys involved matters of urban sprawl, two wars, lots of federal legislation, and many other factors, not just the prosecuted criminal conspiracy involving streetcars. GM’s action were a factor. Not THE factor.

I think you may be a little off on the first assumption, but on the second, we agree. Mr. Ladd appears to have identified you roughly with Mr Snell's position, based on secondary and tertiary sources. You seem to think that puts you in with an "eminent historian," yes?

 EB>The fallacious entry involving Page 212 of Autophobia was posted for anyone to check, and none of this information was contradicted in any way by any person. Moreover, I continue to see statements, comments, references, and facts twisted or repeated erroneously … all to suit a highly argumentative point of view. I wonder if anyone has thought about the reaction of the Hertz Corporation should they discover that their name has been dragged into a prosecuted criminal conspiracy--and for the first time--and one which is absolutely without merit. I have zero connection to Hertz, but I have an abundant connection to truthful reporting.

Nothing fallacious about it. Mr Ladd is an excellent source here, although it might help to clarify what is meant, exactly, by "defenses of the conspiracy theory", since there are several possible meanings. Do you subscribe to Snell's? Anmccaff (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: What would I expect Hertz (car rental) to do? I'd expect them to read the section, realize that neither I, nor Wiki, nor anyone else her is saying anything against them or their founder that isn't factually correct, and go on about their business. If they took any offense with the idea, I'd expect then to take it up with those who promulgated it, not those who debunked it. Anmccaff (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I might have misplaced this comment above. There is so much factual to challenge, my comment might be better seen here at the end of a long series of false assertions. Here it is >>

There are too much false facts above to rebut and open hostility to counter, as I am sure other Wikipedians have already concluded. I note a linked assemblage of false statements, half truths, and misdirection in a section for some reason linked to this discussion. See it above and below here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edwin_Black#Just_to_recap_here. To those such as PeterEastern and others who have given up, I sympathize. yours, edwin--Edwin Black author (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Green Line;

@Whoop whoop pull up:, why nuke the Green Line reference? If anything, it might be better to add the others. Anmccaff (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Questionable edits by IP user

Anmccaff's edits seem to have an agenda. Comments on user's talk page suggest industry bias and flagrant disregard for Wikipedia guidance and processes. I suggest a case-by-case review of all of users contributions to this page. Edit: I began this process, but soon realized I don't have the endurance to take on such a large endeavor on a topic in which I have no preknowledge nor great amount of interest.--173.27.100.156 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you have neither knowledge or interest, yet you edit? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. It also sounds like a falsehood. Anmccaff (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

While I didn't know about this subject before reading the article. I am educated in Wikipedia policies and methodologies. Please do not conflate the two. Your edits, including the retitling of this section of the talk page—but also as seen throughout your user history—show disregard for NPOV, frequent attempts to tarnish the character of your ideological opposition through use of weasel words, disregard for Wikipedia's dispute process, participation in multiple edit wars, argumentum ad hominem rather than the expected argumentum ad rem, use of dubious tags, and—in my opinion—systematic bias for transportation tycoons and against their employees & customers.--(OP)173.27.99.140 (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent changes. My edit summaries explained the purpose of the edits made. Your edits proport me to be a sock puppet. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004. I closed my user account in 2010 due to concern for my family's safety after the disclosure of my personal information on Wikipedia. My subsequent posts have been by IP. You have reverted an edit without regard to the reason it was edited and again used argumentum ad hominem in your edit summary.--173.27.99.140 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have added unsourced claims, and to have added a tag with no justification here other than a general complaint about an unspecified agenda, all without evidence. Please stop telling us your history (it's irrelevant) and stop talking about editors (use WP:ANI for that). Is there any reason why your edits should stand? Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:,check out the "vandalism warning" left on my user page. Yupp, I suspect this sock needs a new ban. Anmccaff (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you delete the nonsense on your talk, or if wanted, I'm happy to do it as a third party. Or, ignoring it is good too. I forget why I'm watching this article and have no recollection of past problems. Judging by the IP's content-free spray we will see more. There's no rush and patience will prevail. By the way, your ping did not work. For a notification to work, a new comment with a new signature has to be added; editing an existing comment does not count because that might send multiple notifications when people fix their typos. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit on the article page; there are simply no good cites for this. Streetcars in OK city went bust in 1940; the company which took over transit initially planned a full replacement with motorbuses; only the war stopped them - a common thread in many transit histories. Jordan Petroleum, or rather their owner, took over soon afterwards end and completed the program. Anmccaff (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:, the Sock drawer was filling up. Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop talking about socks and other editors, particularly on an article talk page. Likewise, the IP should stop talking about other editors. If anyone has a comment regarding article content and how it might be improved, please add a new section. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Message for the shifting IP: This is not the right page for your opinions on other editors. Your recently deleted comments raise no specific issues and merely contain blather voicing dissatisfaction with another editor. Take one example of article content and explain the issue in a new section without mentioning other editors. The place for opinions might be WP:COIN but evidence would be needed, not a content-free spray. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

For inclusion

Be careful how you refer to the Great American Streetcar Scandal

The Real Story Behind the Death of Streetcars in the United States

Aimed, essentially,at the same audience that once bought into Snellery. Anmccaff (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

removed the "|" sign that screwed up the link. Thanks for them btw.George Leung (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on General Motors streetcar conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004181539/http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm to http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004181539/http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm to http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-1/holle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531201102/http://www.dctrolley.org:80/exhibits.htm to http://www.dctrolley.org/exhibits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)