Talk:Lexus/Archive 3

Lexus IS-F on Timeline

Why is it under "entry-level"; I hope Lexus doesn't consider it to be entry level just because it is an IS. Bobmilkman 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think a new category should be created for the timeline. F, F-Sports, F-Marque or something like that where the IS-F and GT-F (LF-A Supercar) can be placed, and where the rumored GS-F can be placed in the future. -Brendan 17:02 1/11/08

+To be done. Octave8 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Future of Lexus section

I think someone should look over the "Future of Lexus" section, most of it is quite outdated.74.12.216.236 05:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some sections should be moved out of Future of Lexus and above. However, going by section:

1. Concept vehicles - still relevant to the future of Lexus; note that Lexus.com lists the LF Series as indicative of the future lineup, half of which has appeared;
2. L-Finesse - perhaps this can be moved forward or not, the sedan lineup is completed with L-Finesse, however new models are still forthcoming;
3. F-Series - still a very Future of Lexus item;
4. Global ambitions - this section has some relevant future points, along with recent history.

It seems that any adjustments will have to be specific. If you have any further suggestions they are welcome. Thanks. Enigma3542002 10:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

]]Italic text''''Bold text''''Bold text''''Bold text''''''''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.211.32 (talk • contribs)

Sections

I merged the newly created Highlights section into the Design and Technology section, because both sections discuss various Lexus innovations. The Highlights section was in bullet list form (2 items), which I converted to paragraph form. If so desired, the list of dozen-odd innovations could be made into bullet form.

Also, the Service section was renamed 'Service and Warranty' evidently due to the addition of a sentence at the end on Lexus warranties. I returned the section name to Service because that is the overall purpose of the section, the warranty information is an additional detail but not the main focus IMO. I expanded the warranty info a bit, and contemplated making it a subsection with its own boldface title. If additional distinction is needed that could be done. Enigma3542002 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

warranty section folded into service, and the text has been written to flow accordingly. Enigma3542002 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

pricing Europe / US

I noticed that several models seem to differ about 50% in pricing between the US and Europe. Europe seems to get 150% of the US price without noticable differences. You can easily compare them by visiting lexus.com, lexus.co.uk, lexus.fr and lexus.de side by side. Why is this? I believe this information should be mentioned in the article. Also international prices could be added the to model articles, since I believe this is quite an important fact and could offer a critical position of the Lexus marketing strategy. --84.178.77.183 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting detail, I agree if we have more comprehensive information, the pricing details could be added. I read an article where Koreans were complaining that the cost of an ES 350 was 2x the time it cost in Korea as in the US. However, much of this is due to tariffs and taxation...I have read that the price of a Corolla in some countries = the price of an ES in the US, given the hefty import taxes, etc. Enigma3542002 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard about taxes???! In Europe cars are heavily taxed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.162.131 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lexus Japan information, references

First of all, the ceo of this company is Katsuaki Watanabe. Lexus is Toyota. Toyota owns Lexus. It's toyota's brand and subdivision. There is only one Lexus and lexus is sold in Japan. It's not an american brand, it's japanese brand. Lexus is global brand and Japanese name should be included in here. Global headquarters of Lexus is the headquarters of Toyota, in which the CEO sits in. America is the second biggest. Lexus is Japan. Lexus is toyota. Toyota is lexus. Katsuaki watanabe is lexus.

Lexus is Japanese brand. It's not american brand and the ceo is katsuaki, bob carter is general manager. He is way below katsuaki 168.253.14.25 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my response.

• The CEO of Toyota is Mr. Watanabe. But he is NOT the CEO of the Lexus division. Look at Volkswagen Group -- it owns Audi. On the Volkswagen Group page it lists the VW CEO, Martin Winterkorn. On the Audi page it lists the Audi subsidiary executive, Rupert Stadler. The Lexus article should list division personnel, not the overall Toyota corporate structure.

• 'Key people' is logically not the exact same between a division and its parent. Toyota owns Lexus, but the key people in Lexus report to the key people in Toyota. Takeshi Yoshida is the Lexus Managing Officer. [1], Bob Carter is the US Lexus Group Vice President. The Lexus division, believe it or not, was founded in the U.S. as a division of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. It still remains active, and the Lexus Group Vice President is Bob Carter. That's why he belongs there. You'll also note the Acura article also includes the U.S. headquarters, because Acura is mainly a U.S. division. The Lexus division includes both Japan and U.S. personnel and locations. I have put the Japanese location and personnel first in order to reflect the newer focus of Lexus in Japan.

• Based on this source [2], Takeshi Yoshida is the General Manager of the Lexus Development Center, and the "Lexus Managing Officer" (according to the article). Lexus got its own Japanese board of directors, design, engineering, training, and manufacturing centers working exclusively for the luxury division in 2005. Even if Mr. Watanabe has a seat on this board, and he probably does, this is the Lexus article and not the Toyota one. It should list the Lexus-specific personnel. If you have a more updated source which clearly specifies Lexus-dedicated corporate officers, please share it before making changes.

• Lexus was founded as Lexus, not レクサス. Based on discussion on this talk page, レクサス is a phonetical translation (rexusasu). By contrast, トヨタ自動車株式会社 has primary meaning (Toyota Motor Corporation), which is why it is included in the Toyota article. If you insist upon keeping it there, please provide an explanation. Otherwise, the link to the http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/レクサス has already been included, which precludes the need to put the phonetical translation. I will leave it there for now, but it will probably be removed. This is the English wikipedia; any other languages included in the LEAD must have a very specific and supported reason. レクサス is already in the trivia section.

• Trying to change the intro to "Japanese Toyota Motor Corporation's luxury vehicle division. Lexus brand name vehicles are sold in Japan, North America, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Latin America, Asia and Oceania" is not NPOV, it is biased. Why? Because it is pushing Japan over everything, including Lexus itself. You put Japan in front of everything else--and note that Japan is a country, NOT a continent or major geographical region. The listing of regions in the article is IN ORDER of geographical sales importance to Lexus.

• Area served is redundant and unnecessary. Look at Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Saab, Volvo, Cadillac, Acura, and Infiniti. None of those use area served.

Do you want the Lexus article to be as good as the other luxury makes' articles? Or are you trying to push an agenda of Japanese nationalism first? I am trying to make this article as encyclopaedic as possible, I hope you will try to do that too. Putting nationalistic emphasis into the article cheapens it; this article is about #1 Lexus. It is not about "#1 Japan or #1 Toyota" or pushing 'Japanese Lexus.' It is about #1 Lexus, which is a Japanese-based luxury division, with worldwide goals, cars, etc. And it is about discussing Lexus in a NPOV manner. Enigma3542002 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not being nationalistic at all. This article had Bob Carter on the first, and it looked like it was trying to separate Lexus from Toyota, like Toyota is some cheap carmaker that is not up to par with Lexus. My intention was Lexus is part of Toyota, which is a Japanese company. It felt like this article tried to ditch Toyota (what is toyota?) to the Lexus big and boss of everything, and therefore it has to be American and not Japanese company deceptive agenda. You make a good point. When you had Bob Carter, as general manager, lexus division, it looked like really cheap and weak try. This article is really matured greatly and I hope the article Toyota becomes like this. 168.253.14.25 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this section has been retitled to reflect current discussion utility. Enigma3542002 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 16:11, Friday June 14 2024 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |}

On behalf of all the lead editors of this article, thank you for your review and the GA status!!! Enigma3542002 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The above review has been copied into the GA comments page, linked via the GA related infobox at top. Enigma3542002 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliability ratings

To clarify, the statements in the lead paragraph support the point that Lexus has a reputation for reliability. There are 3 main points illustrated: J.D. Power results over time (and hence, 2006 being the 12th consecutive year at the top), Consumer Reports (one of the topmost brands over the past few years), and AutoExpress/Top Gear (survey results, consecutive years at the top below) [3].

All three main areas are relevant; deletions of the J.D. Power results is unwarranted! As for Consumer Reports results, the statement reflects the overall results over the past decade, plus:

2007 #1) Toyota #2) Honda #3) Scion #4) Acura #5) Lexus
2006 #1) Lexus #2) Honda #3) Toyota #4) Mitsubishi #5) Subaru [4]
2005 #1) Scion #2) Lexus #3) Toyota #4) Subaru #4) Honda [5]
2004 #1) Subaru #2) Honda #3) Toyota/Acura #4) Lexus/Hyundai/Infiniti [6]
2003 #1) Lexus #2) Infiniti/Honda #3) Toyota #4) Acura/Mazda/Buick [7]
2002 #1) Toyota [8]
2001 #1) Infiniti #2) Lexus #3) Toyota #4) Acura [9] [10]
2000 #1) Acura #2) Lexus/Toyota #3) Honda [11]

The statement is fair as it pertains to the past years. Based on CR, Lexus ranks #5, #1, #2, #4, #1, [...], #2, #2 in the past decade, an indication of the topmost reliable brands (30-so examined). Consumer Reports fluctuates more; the J.D. Power results have been more consistent. Enigma3542002 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sales figures in lead

The addition of "Lexus Just nudges out BMW as the highest-selling brand of luxury cars, however they still have a ways to go to catch up to the German Luxury brands in sales wordlwide" [sic] has been inserted repeatedly by User: 71.249.234.243. This statement has been removed repeatedly by myself and others, mainly for NPOV. Here are reasons why the lead section, as shown below, does not warrant the non NPOV revisions regarding competitive sales data:

“ Lexus is the luxury vehicle division of Japanese automaker Toyota Motor Corporation. Lexus brand name vehicles are sold in North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Oceania, Africa, and Latin America; in the United States, Lexus is the highest-selling brand of luxury cars. In 2005, the Lexus marque launched in Japan, marking the continued global expansion of the luxury division. ”

1. "In the United States, Lexus is the highest-selling brand of luxury cars" is a statement of fact. This has been true for the past 7 years. "Just nudges out BMW as the highest-selling brand of luxury cars" however is an ambiguous statement. In 2006, Lexus sold 322,434 vehicles. BMW sold 274,432 vehicles (not including MINI's 39,171). The difference between Lexus and BMW, or in previous years Cadillac and Mercedes, fluctuates from year to year. Is "just nudges" accurate? It's a highly ambiguous statement. What seems more likely is that the posting of "just nudges out BMW" stems from a biased POV.
2. "The Lexus marque ranks as the fourth-largest luxury brand in the world by volume." This is another factual statement that is included in the article, specifically in the Lexus Today section. This statement itself obviates the "still have a ways to go to catch up to the German Luxury brands in sales wordlwide" statement, which itself seems to be from a POV that is not quite encyclopaedic.
3. The lead section includes key points which stem from WP:N; competitive comparisons are more for a general discussion of the luxury market, for instance in luxury vehicles where some market share data is mentioned. However for a focus on Lexus, the sales data should be fact-based and notable.

As mentioned before, please do not make controversial edits without consensus. The inclusion of statements that have a biased POV in them can be challenged, and in the case of the sales data statements, removed. Thank you for your cooperation. Enigma3542002 22:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mini sales are counted under BMW nameplate by every source. BMW is the second best selling luxury brand in the u.s. Lexus nudges out BMW for the #1 spot. Point, Blank, Period.

So what? This is an article about Lexus, not BMW. As great a company as BMW is, mentioning it in the Lexus article lead is irrelevant. Should I go to the BMW article and add "BMW is the second best-selling luxury brand in the U.S., 'just nudged' out by Lexus."????? The competitive data is for sales charts that people can look at, not for encyclopaedic mentions in an article about a carmaker. What is relevant is the market position as stated for that carmaker; not adding competitor numbers ad nauseum. Shall we add Mercedes too? Should I mention that BMW 'just nudges' Mercedes for the #2 spot?

Furthermore, the statement 'best-selling luxury brand in the U.S.' refers to singular BRAND. Numerous sources, from Bloomberg to BusinessWeek, talk about Lexus and BMW brand sales. MINI sales are included only in BMW Group sales. In either case, the 2007 margin is 50,000 for brand sales; include MINI (an unfair advantage; why not include Scion or Toyota???) and the margin is 10,000. Is that 'just nudges'? Maybe, maybe not. It's ambiguous. Another reason why these statements appear to be the additions of a biased POV. Enigma3542002 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Team Lexus

Does anyone have any information on Team Lexus' reorganization efforts? Enigma3542002 03:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding My Lexus Website

Hello, I run The Passionate Pursuit, a website with daily news and view on Lexus. I would love to add the site to external links, but didn't want to do so without first checking with this article's maintainers.

Please check out my site and let me know. Krew 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's your own blog with ads, I'd say no per WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Krew! I have visited your website, and I find it very informative and up-to-date with the latest Lexus news and information. AFAIK there is no Lexus-dedicated site that monitors the latest news about Lexus and collects them like you do. However, Ohnoitsjamie is correct in that wiki page links prefer official sites only. Based on the quality of your content, your site has been added to the dmoz directory listing: [12] Thanks for your efforts with the website! Enigma3542002 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for considering it, I understand the reasoning. I wasn't exactly sure how it worked. Great article, I refer to it often. Krew 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lexus navigation lockout

I have edited and removed User:68.192.30.12's [13] addition to the Lexus article several times in the past week(s), for a number of reasons. First, because of improper placement in the wrong section, also because of lack of NPOV, and no sourcing. The section in question is as follows:

“ Vehicles produced by Lexus as well as parent company, Toyota, have a "feature" in their navigation systems that lock out many of the features when the vehicle is in motion. While the manufacturer claims that this is done for safety, many users have complained that passengers are not able to enter destinations while in motion even though it is safe to do so. Additionally, drivers have complained that it is often more dangerous to pull off a highway and stop than it would be to enter a destination into the system. ”

This section is largely copied verbatim from Automotive_navigation_system#Controversy, where it is also unsourced. Please see: WP:RELY for information on how to get proper sourcing. There is a lack of NPOV in this section, for instance the use of scare quotes for "feature" and the unsourced claim that "many users have complained" and also the "more dangerous" comment. These are highly subjective, and are opinion more than fact. One could easily respond "it is less dangerous to simply not try to fiddle with the navigation system in motion" -- but that is also opinion.

I realize that there have been complaints on message boards about the navigation system lockout, but message board complaints do not a reliable source make. For now I've left the petition link in place even though WP:LINKS suggests otherwise. And, the petition is not a reliable source--anyone can create an online petition for just about anything and for any reason. Furthermore, there are websites which state how to use the secret override codes on most Lexus vehicles to unlock the navigation in motion.

Finally, the Design and Technology section is primarily an informative, factual one. It is not a forum for opinion about the way some systems work. The reference on the navigation lockout is allowed to remain, but has been modified as follows:

“ As a safety feature, Lexus navigation systems feature a motion lockout when the vehicle reaches a set speed, to prevent distraction; voice commands and pre-programmed buttons remain accessible. ”

This is the factual description of how the navigation system is designed and how it works, not an opinionated version. It is also confirmable by picking up any Lexus manual, visiting the navigation tutorial on Lexus.com, or trying a Lexus vehicle, and is considered a basic statement of fact. Whether the system works as intended or is not convenient is up for debate, but the article must remain NPOV as possible. Thank you for adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Enigma3542002 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The user's manual is not available online. Dealers don't disclose the issue. They program the unit before the test drive. In some cases, the promise that an override is available but it no longer is.

Why not just leave the issue in place and let the reader decide if they object to the issue. The same is true for the link to the petition lexusoverride.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.30.12 (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, the statement has been included: "As a safety precaution, Lexus navigation systems feature a motion lockout when the vehicle reaches a set speed. To prevent distraction, navigation inputs are limited while in motion, while voice commands and pre-programmed buttons remain accessible." This statement refers to the motion lockout, and lets readers know that the motion lockout is there. However, this is a fact, not opinion...notice there is no statement as to one way or another, whether this is a good or bad thing, aside from its definition (It is intended as a safety precaution, but it limits inputs and locks out features). Additionally, owners manuals are available online, and AFAIK they do mention the lockout.

As for the petition, the external links section has recently been cleaned up of extraenous links. WP:LINKS makes it clear that mostly official links and in-depth informational websites should be included. A petition also argues for a POV and is to be avoided. At the present time, readers can head over to ClubLexus and find out there how to override the navigation system on most Lexus models, there are numerous threads there on the topic, along with many other pieces of information. Enigma3542002 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Advert/Fansite

This article reads like a combination of Lexus PR and fansite material. Not that it's poorly written, but the tone sounds like a collaboration from Lexus fan groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.150.132 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your comments. This article has passed the GA critera for NPOV, however there is always room for improvement. If you have any specific suggestions, please make them. Otherwise, blanket tagging of the article is not very helpful. If you have any specific spots, sections or sentences, where you feel the tone is not fair, please discuss them here, and when a consensus is reached, changes can be made. Thank you. Enigma3542002 04:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Having come to this article via another source, I must say that I became increasingly incredulous as I read the article; to the extent where I came to the discussion page to try to track the author. In short, this article reads like a Lexus advert and I am VERY surprised that the primary author is not in fact an employee of Lexus' PR division. Phases like 'design language' do nothing to diminish this feeling. The article may meet Wiki guidelines and cites a variety of sources, but it is almost brutally one-sided. Normally in an article you expect to read several [sourced] critisisms or listed shortfalls, whereas I don't actually see any here, dispite a number of known and reported shortfalls in the product and company. If you don't work for Lexus, then I'd recommend that you re-proof your text to remove such Marketing-talk and also endevour to at least dig out a couple of sourced critisisms of the company, or something negative! [User:siranui|siranui] (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.149.166 (talk)

Thx for your comments, the article now includes a number of sourced criticisms. As for design language, may I refer you to the Wikipedia article on the topic. Enigma3542002 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Must say I feel the same way as the original poster. As someone with neither a bias towards or against Lexus I think that this page more than any other car company article is being controlled by elements with a clear agenda to promote the company. This might be a case of Americacentricity. Lexus may be the best-selling luxury brand in the US but in the rest of the world it struggles to sell against long-established rivals with heritage and this isn't made clear here. I have no axe to grind but I am monitoring the article. Perhaps the gushing praise could be balanced by a criticisms section? Dino246 01:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a primary editor of this article, I will say that there is not a direct agenda to promote the company, however most definitely this article is being edited from an American point of view as that is where most information, and many editors (with regards to Lexus), are based. For other articles I have extensively edited, such as Mercedes-Benz S-Class, an abundance of international information exists, plus the topic in question is more broadly distributed, making a wider perspective more available to discuss. Lexus' success is primarily in North America, Asia, Russia, then Europe where it is weakest (about 10% of sales come from there). In the "Global ambitions" section a sentence mentions this: "With regards to the European market, where Lexus has a less developed dealership network, smaller brand recognition, and minor market share, automotive analysts have pointed to" [...] etc.

However not as much is said about heritage, primarily because the impact of 'heritage' is difficult to quantify and discuss. If you have some references which talk about this and are credible, please feel free to add them. Additionally, it is a good idea to provide some criticism, given that it be well-sourced. This article may appear laudatory in the number of awards referenced, however those are indeed factual. They don't often give awards for critical elements, but there can be other ways of talking about it...for instance in the context of car reviews, or branding articles (I think I can find some branding articles that talk about Lexus in general, and a number of articles already referenced in this article have discussions about brand criticisms which could be added). Enigma3542002 01:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more clarification on Lexus' US market focus has been added: "Meanwhile, Lexus sales remain focused on the US market. In 2006, two-thirds of total global Lexus sales of 475,000 units came from the United States" [...] I am looking for some clear heritage discussion. I seem to remember some sources talking about heritage as primarily as European affectation; clearly the heritage issue is not as major in Russia, parts of Asia, and other countries where Lexus sales are surging. However in Europe that is definitely one out of a possible number of causes for the brand's difficulty in penetrating the market. Enigma3542002 02:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found and will be adding some references to heritage and car branding. Enigma3542002 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I still find myself editing attempts to whitewash Lexus' most obvious and concrete shortfall in the luxury car market, its lack of heritage or pedigree. These are not intangible qualities, they are very real things. They may not bother the American consumer as much but in countries with rich cultural histories going back many centuries or even millenia, these things are important. Pedigree is not something that can be built up over time. Pedigree is about breeding and as the parent company has always been a mainstream mass-market manufacturer of cheap transport, the off-shoot, Lexus, has no pedigree and never will. Heritage, on the other hand, can be built up over time but it will take a long time. Porsche has it despite being a post-war company much younger than BMW or Mercedes but they built it up with unprecedented success in motorsport (and not simply by waiting for a parent company's car to become successful and then sticking their badge on it). My point is that some criticisms of Lexus should be accepted and left in the article without ifs, buts, speculative plans for the future, or other NPOV attempts to neutralise them. Dino246 08:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dino, I left a not on your talk page regarding this issue - please beware of adding your opinion to article. That "Pedigree is about breeding and as the parent company has always been a mainstream mass-market manufacturer of cheap transport, the off-shoot, Lexus, has no pedigree and never will" is your opinion. Rembmer that the criteria for inclusion is not truth but verifiablity. Only add statements that can be verified using a reliable sources. (Note that I am not an active editor on this article but merely an admin trying stop what seems like an emergin slow-mo edit war and WP:POV & WP:OR vio). Thanks and Regards, Signature^brendel 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not added any opinion to the article. I have outlined my personal (professional) analysis here in the talk page as way of explaining why I believe the original article suffers from consistent and subtle bias. However, this was mostly semantic explanation of the linguistic differences between heritage, pedigree and legacy, none of which are a matter of opinion but rather of dictionary definition. The terms are not interchangeable and I felt it was important to establish the differences between them. The source that had been provided by someone else quite explicitly states that to aid sales in Japan Lexus are distancing themselves from Toyota because of the parent company's pedigree and its incompatibility with the luxury car market. [14] With respect, and with no desire to start an edit war, I stand by my previous edit and am reverting to it. Dino246 11:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When i finished reading this article, I think this article need attach these.

But, I don't want attack by Lexus Agent or Fanboy. Anyone explain to me? This article is look like an AD. Juice8093 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lexus is inferior to any of the German and European marques and will always be that way. This article should recognize that European luxury cars came first and are the real thing, not a cheap knockoff like Lexus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantor575 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it reads like an advert (or to precise an advertorial.) Phrases like "Recently, Lexus has been a pioneer in the field of hybrid vehicles". Huh? By using the drive from the Prius? And mpg rates are terrible by anything except 4x4 or luxury standards. I mean, it's good they are putting hybrids into these cars, but pioneer? This is a fairly random point of many. In general the text needs to distinguish between the historical and technical details, which are well written and I assume accurate, and explicit or implicit praise. In general the article needs NPOV. --81.179.93.205 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lexus Symphony Orchestra

Hello, I would like to make you aware of the recent “Lexus Symphony Orchestra” events that have just been held in the UK (media coverage here: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/08/10/lexus.orchestra/index.html and official Lexus page here: http://www.lexus.co.uk/about_lexus/news_and_events/lso.asp )

I would greatly appreciate seeing a mention of this event, a link or an article dedicated to it. It could be positioned along the Mark Levinson detail in the LS article, and/or in the Popular Culture or Lexus Sponsorship sections of the main Lexus article. Moreover, I also have pictures, mp3 files and a “making of” video which could potentially be linked to/used?

I am affiliated with Lexus and I am working with them to manage their online presence. I therefore rightly accept that according to WP:COI I have no right to edit (or influence in any way) the production of these mentions. That is fully understandable and I am actually glad that Wikipedia has such stringent quality control.

I also understand that you may reject this request on the basis of it looking like an “advert”. While I would fully accept such a rejection, I would appreciate receiving clear explanations and being given a chance to debate the matter further (either here, via email or any other way).

And as a last point, no matter what the outcome of the above request will be, I am happy to assist with the upkeep of Lexus related pages on Wikipedia. Because of my affiliation with the company, I can help with sourcing facts, figures or any other info that may be required (as long as the editors see no problem in me doing so)

Thanks for your attention Converse16 10:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Converse16. Thanks for bringing the concert info to our attention. That it merited coverage by CNN and other media sites indicates it was a pretty novel event(s). I think a reference could be included in the Lexus main article and LS article, I'll get back to you on that. Thanks for the info. Enigma3542002 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

However there are objections that it was more publicity than popular culture. Enigma3542002 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some googling and many hits came up for the "Lexus Symphony Orchestra," of which specific news articles further include: Edmunds InsideLine, The Car Connection, Autoblog, and others. A succinct mention of the events have been added to Pop Culture, where I think it best fits. A photograph to document this event would be great, given its novelty as one of the few automotive concerts. However, such a photo needs to be an amateur one or have its copyright formally released; Wikipedia has strict rules on the kinds of photos allowed. Enigma3542002 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this event isn't popular culture, it's a publicity stunt. The fact that it was picked up by CNN does not make it any less so. Dino246 00:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is borderline, I will remove the reference. Enigma3542002 00:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for a review but haven't found one. Enigma3542002 00:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to discuss this further. Enigma3542002 05:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Below are my thoughts on why a reference should be included:

1. It is a world first, and would therefore deserve being mentioned in an encyclopaedia. This should of course be portrayed in a neutral and informative manner avoiding “peacock” terms.

2. It is a piece of relevant trivia on the brand that will be of genuine interest to readers. I am of the view that Wikipedia has an advantage over traditional encylopaedias in that it can provide this extra information on topics.

3. As Enigma3542002 mentioned, it fulfills notability requirements since there is substantial coverage of the events across online media and radio (ClassicFM and local regional BBC stations here in the UK).

4. There are examples of Lexus product placement in Films and TV series and details on celebrity RX400h owners in the Popular Culture section. This is interesting in my opinion, but is it not advertising?

5. The Lexus LS article has a link to the 460degrees website. I again agree that this is relevant and interesting, however if we use the reasoning in the comments above, this website should not be given the privilege of a hyperlink. Is this not an example of a simple promotional sponsorship?

Enigma3542002, I have pictures of the events so please let me know if you would like to see these. Also, not sure what you mean exactly by review? Let me know and I will get you the detail you need.

In conclusion, I can definitely see where Dino246 is coming from with his comment, however in my opinion such an editorial policy is not coherent with the current content of the article (specifically the Popular Culture section).

Thank you again for your attention all, it is much appreciated and I really hope we can make this work. Converse16 10:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this article is full of content written by Lexus enthusiasts rather than independent motor industry scholars can not be used as justification for adding even more information that is non-compliant with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Had an orchestra decided that the best broadcast system they could find for their concert was a fleet of 'Lexi' then this event might be relevant as evidence of the quality of the sound system in the LS. But that's not what happened is it. Lexus wanted some publicity for their car that would associate it with quality and culture and staged the whole event. Unlike the other pop culture references it says nothing about the way that Lexus is perceived, only about the way they want to be perceived. The event itself is an advertisement, pure and simple. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Dino246 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia special is the fact it gives anyone (from scholars to enthusiasts) the chance to write about topics. Topics that are then edited and improved based on wider community discussions on Talk pages.

Therefore based on this I feel that including relevant trivia on topics (as long as this is written in a neutral manner and not in excessive length) adds to the interest and richness of an article rather than detracting from the quality of it.

I thus think that examples of product placement, a link to the 460 Degrees website and a description of how L-Finesse has been portrayed through sponsored art shows are interesting and relevant bits of trivia. However, these details do not show how Lexus is perceived, but how they want to be perceived. I doubt we would see these referenced in a Britannica, but because this is Wikipedia we do and personally I think that’s great.

Also a minor detail, the main aim of the LSO events was to showcase the quality and power of the Mark Levinson sound system in an innovative way, not necessarily associate Lexus with quality and culture.

However in conclusion, if all other editors agree that a reference to the LSO should not be included I will rightly accept the decision. But I would appreciate reading opinions/comments from other contributors/editors as well in order to get a broader perspective on the debate.

Thank you again for your attention Converse16 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Had Lexus merely wanted to show the power of the sound system then they could have used the cars to amplify a rock or hip-hop concert - line them up at Glastonbury maybe. This would have been much more in keeping with the 'bling' image that Lexus has in the UK (as noted by Jeremy Clarkson and referenced in the article). Lexus were/are clearly trying to 'correct' this image to make Lexus more acceptable to the conservative British luxury car buyer. The LSO events are relevant to the article in as much as they acknowledge that Lexus GB realises that the Lexus brand has an image problem in the UK. Perhaps the LSO events can be added to the pop-culture section as a response to the Clarkson quote. This would at least put this particular publicity drive in context allowing readers to better understand Lexus' ongoing rocky brand development in Britain. Dino246 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dino246, the problem with Lexus in the UK is that it is seen as too conservative and “boring”, not “bling”. These LSO events were focused on classical music as it would allow the first “concerts” to be organized at events (such as Castle Howard and Crystal Palace) that attract a more upmarket demographic that is currently more likely to have an interest in Lexus (although for future appearances of the LSO, the cars may very well perform other genres in other venues…)

The aim was then to showcase the capabilities of the Mark Levinson sound system (each set of instruments was routed to a separate car to simulate the set up of a real classical music orchestra) and show that Lexus can actually do something “out of the norm” and fun.

I also believe the Clarkson article refers to how Lexus is perceived in the US more than in the UK considering that it quotes lyrics from US artists. Moreover, this article is from 2004 so slightly out of date. More recent reviews by Clarkson point out how Lexus lacks “soul” (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article710808.ece) and that is exactly the problem the brand has in the UK.

Therefore, if the only way to include a reference of the LSO is by describing it as an attempt to correct Lexus brand “image” in the UK, be it so. But I feel it should be portrayed as an attempt to inject a bit of fun and character into a brand that is seen as conservative and un-exciting in the UK.

I do however think that the original LSO reference Enigma3542002 had made was the most simple and useful to readers, but I of course respect whatever decision is made by the editors/contributors of this article. Converse16 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)