Talk:Toyota Prius/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stumbling block #2: The inclusion of a description of Top Gear's Prius v BMW M3 exercise

Can we, whilst still fulfilling our obligation to comply with all Wikipedia polices, add a paragraph to this article, describing the Top Gear exercise in which they drove at Prius as fast as they could for 10 laps of a 1.8 mile track, and compared its fuel consumption with that of a BMW M3 shadowing it at exactly the same pace? -- de Facto (talk). 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What extraordinary claim? There is nothing extraordinary about relating, from a reliable and verifiable secondary source, the fact that Top Gear performed the exercise, which they clearly did? We would be making no "claims". -- de Facto (talk). 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No in response to the question asked. There is no reason to include an absurdly configured test that has no meaningful application to the way the service the vehicle is meant to provide. The Prius was not designed for constant full throttle operation (nor were any other passenger vehicles that I am aware of.) The Top Gear stunt has no relevance to the article. Red Harvest (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The "need" is that it exists, and it is relevant to this article - it involves the Prius. Is there a good reason to exclude it? -- de Facto (talk). 23:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant as it has nothing to do with the real world any more than an article about how many bales of hay you can fit in a Prius or a Prius' performance in a tractor pull. Again you are pushing undue weight for an article that is pushing a negative slant. Red Harvest (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's your personal point of view. If I was sat in Sydney reading my copy of The Australian over my breakfast, and I read that on Top Gear "the eight-cylinder Beamer recorded better fuel consumption than the Prius"[1] I might be stirred to investigate this on the web. Wouldn't it be great if the first hit was our article here, presenting a balanced portrayal of the Top Gear exercise, rather than a pro-M3 or anti-Prius blog? That is what Wikipedia is for - to present the real story, with accurately cited sources backing it up.

Incidentally, if a bales of hay, or a tractor pulling comparison with the Prius reached the same audience, and achieved the same level of interest as the Top gear episode has, then I am sure it should also be covered here. Remember too, that that Top Gear show only went out for the first time a month or two ago, and that as Top Gear is sold around the globe, and is devoured by car enthusiasts the world over, the curiosity about this comparison will grow even more. -- de Facto (talk). 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we discussed this already above in detail? Sure, we "can" add information on the Top Gear episode, as we could from almost anything remotely related to the article subject. The questions were, what does it actually demonstrate, how notable is it, and how does the relevance and notability compare with other material competing for inclusion? This and some of the other stuff you've introduced might be appropriate for a detailed article titled "Toyota Prius in popular culture" or similar, but has poor relevance for informing readers about the car itself. --JWB (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes we have already discussed it, but de Facto will not accept consensus, he would rather continue trying to wear down other editors by rejecting their reasoning and claiming his is superior. This is intolerable. Red Harvest (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All editors have the right to discuss aspects of the article on the talk page, that's what it's for. Would you deny me the right to disagree with the "reasoning" I've encountered in previous discussions on this subject? What would be intolerable would be to freeze the article as it is today, and claim it should stay this way because of "consensus". -- de Facto (talk). 23:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Discuss yes, pester other editors endlessly while rejecting consensus? No. Freezing the article would be preferable to continuing this farce, unfortunately. Useful editing is not happening because you are wasting all of our time on this talk page. Red Harvest (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discuss - yes. I've explained why I think it should be in, you've objected, but have brought no credible reason. How you spend your time is your business, not mine, if you consider this discussion a waste of it, then do not participate - it's your call. I am expending valuable time here, attempting to persuade two or three editors of the Prius article, that a Prius-specific item, of increasing interest and of worldwide notability, should not be excluded from the article. -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed it, but it got jumbled up with an older discussion, so I thought we could explore the arguments more thoroughly, and in a more structured fashion if we isolated it, and put it into its correct context.

OK we "can" add it, but we need to establish its notability, that is very true. How would you rate its notability weight in relation to, say, the NHW20's plastic hub cap cover, or that some enthusiasts enjoy using Prii as the plural - which would be correct if prius were a regular second declension Latin noun? Or that it outperformed the Volkswagen Jetta GL TDI diesel, according to a Popular Mechanics report?

We need to apply the conventions consistently and with impeccable neutrality. -- de Facto (talk). 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No means, No. It doesn't mean rephrase the same thing to try to get a different answer. Red Harvest (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You aren't persuaded that this is something we should add, to provide a balanced view of it for those who will, inevitably, be interested in the circumstances of this exercise? -- de Facto (talk). 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not persuaded and nobody else is either judging from their comments. Red Harvest (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My summary of the discussion

Two editors implied their opinion was that the inclusion of a paragraph about the Top Gear exercise would be incompatible with the requirement to comply with all Wikipedia policies:

• The first, Justinm1978, gave the reason "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but has, so far, not given the detail required, such as which policy and which "claim", to support this objection.
• The second, Red Harvest, gave the reasons that there is no "need" to include it, and that it had "no relevance" to the article. Questioned further about why it wasn't relevant, the answer was because "it has nothing to do with the real world".

A third editor (JWB) expressed concern about the notability of the exercise.

No supported reason was given for keeping this paragraph out of the article on policy grounds.

Therefore, in the absence of any sound reason not to, I propose that this paragraph be reinstated as a relevant, interesting and valuable addition to the article. -- de Facto (talk). 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached, it isn't going back in. Red Harvest (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please present your evidence for that assertion, including summary of the discussion and the contributors. -- de Facto (talk). 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As evidence I present this entire talk page. There, now we can move on. Red Harvest (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't an acceptable response. You assert that "consensus" exists, but fail to supply evidence that a valid consensus actually does exist. A page full of various discussions, about various aspects of this article, is not evidence of such a consensus. If the consensus is so clear to you, please present a summary of the discussions supporting that view, so that those of us still struggling to see it may be enlightened. All I see are refusals to accept the paragraph, but I do not see any well-reasoned reasons or explanations.

When considering your response, please note these extracts from WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.

Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority.

Your goal should be to convince others of your views (and give them a chance to convince you). Being purely argumentative is rarely convincing.

I challenged any former claimed "consensus" that the paragraph should be omitted at 11:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (the start of this discussion section). Where is the evidence of a supportable reason to omit this paragraph?

Consensus may well come into play in the formulation of the precise wording of the inclusion, but a very strong case, supported by reference to appropriate policy extracts, needs to be made to keep any mention of the Top Gear exercise out of this article. -- de Facto (talk). 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response to consensus is unacceptable. You've added nothing new in all these pages of discussion. You've not changed anyone's analysis of the problems. The consensus hasn't changed. Type a million words if you like, but No is still No whether or not you understand the meaning of the word. Red Harvest (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no valid consensus (general agreement). I have challenged the refusal of two editors (Justinm1978 and Red Harvest) to accept the inclusion of this information with logic which outweighs any apparent reason not to include the piece. No logical defence of their positions has been offered - other than the assertion (without supporting evidence) that a "consensus" exists to keep the piece out. If you believe I am mistaken, please explain what outstanding reason there is not to restore the piece. If your answer includes the word "consensus", please summarise the discussion, reasoning and conclusion leading to use that word. -- de Facto (talk). 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, this discussion has gone on for several screens, and you're pretty much the only one who thinks this is important to keep in. Why not include every single op-ed on or road-test ever done on the Prius? Why is this particular one, done by people who are not exactly unbiased, so important? What is your agenda? Why not mention the 4 people who drove a Prius on the open road in Pennsylvania and got 109 mpg (http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2005/fall/marathon.html), or the hypermilers in Japan who do even better? That's every bit as valid. Nerfer (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're notable enough, and supported by reliable secondary sources, then why not add them? -- de Facto (talk). 16:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is too long already. This should be a description of the major points of the Prius and nothing more. I would like to see it shrunk to half the size, personally. (And how has the Top Gear data been supported by secondary sources?) Nerfer (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with the editors who've already weighed in on this matter. The Top Gear report is interesting in its own way -- and I'm a huge fan of the show -- but it doesn't belong in this article. We don't need to mention every test ever performed with a Prius, even when done under instrumented conditions. Top Gear is widely known to stretch or even fake things on its show all the time; the presenters often make small mistakes about specifications of vehicles, as well. That doesn't mean that this particular test was faked, but it does mean that it could have been faked. This makes the TV program a questionably-reliable source. Beyond that, it is not relevant to the article. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to exhaustively document every single thing that ever happened with the subject of the article -- otherwise we would have to wade through pages upon pages of school transcript summaries of our politicians and celebrities. The goal is to present cogent discussions of relevant material, closely connected to the subject at hand. The Top Gear demonstration does not provide any significant new insights into the Prius's performance, and since performance is the only thing Top Gear was purporting to measure, the whole thing is not germane to this article. Sacxpert (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If Top Gear is "widely known to stretch or even fake things on its show all the time", then it would be disqualified as a reliable source. If you provide evidence of same here on the talk page, that would be quite useful, I would say.  Frank  |  talk  12:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all the time is a stretch, too. In all seriousness, though, they do go for maximum drama. For example, their Reliant Robin space shuttle orbiter took weeks to build, a lot longer than they indicated on the program. They also staged a caravan fire, which, as Autoblog noted, demonstrated the show's "entertainment outweighing journalistic integrity."[2] For their races, they splice footage so that it looks like footage from the race, when it was really shot days later.[3] They filmed a Jaguar S-Type R's wheels & brakes, and passed it off as the regular diesel model.[4] When they reviewed the 2003 Mercedes-Benz S600, they had the engine displacement wrong. The point isn't that they're maliciously deceptive; the point is that it's an entertainment show, and they aren't above tweaking things to make a more dramatic point. It doesn't make them an invalid source, IMO, just a questionable one. Sacxpert (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned (and this may be one editor's opinion), questionable = invalid, period.  Frank  |  talk  12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Incentives" for hybrids, not Prius specifically

Almost all of the incentives listed are for hybrids in general, not the Prius in particular. (One listed for NY State says "Prius" but no reference is given, so can't check whether it is actually Prius specific)

The section should be merged to Hybrid electric vehicle#Legislation and incentives, leaving this article with a link to that section. --JWB (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Tag the unsourced stuff, or ditch it - be bold! -- de Facto (talk). 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Justinm1978's reversion of an accurate edit

Justinm1978, will you please justify this edit.

Please explain why you reverted the addition of attribution. Everything there was accurate, to policy, and from the cited reference, and as required by WP:CITE#CHALLENGED:

... find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion

Please explain why you reverted the addition of citation fields which I took trouble to add to make this citation consistent with the best of the rest of the article's references.

Fixed the citation to bring it in-line with the rest of the article. My bad. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you meant by the edit comment "stop skirting this"? -- de Facto (talk). 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you really need a rehash of the above discussions where you are doing everything you possibly can to remove the word "discredited"? Now that you can't have it removed, you're working to minimize it's importance, which is skirting around the fact that it doesn't meet with your "consensus of one". I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me or anybody else here. Justinm1978 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Thanks for restoring the citation contents.

2. I have never expressed a preference between removal or attribution. Attribution is fine, in the sense of the policy, attribution to the individual who holds that view, which you have now removed. The view needs to be assigned to the holder of that view - simple. OK, you didn't like my attempt, so do it yourself and we'll review your attempt. Either way it is essential that is done, if the word is to stay.

As for its importance, that is not for me (or you) to decide, that can only be based upon the prevalence of that view. That is; the number of people who can be verifiably associated with that view via secondary sources. At the moment we have just the one - so it ISN'T very important. -- de Facto (talk). 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Justinm1978, you didn't answer the first of my questions above:

• Please explain why you reverted the addition of attribution. Everything there was accurate, to policy, and from the cited reference, and as required by WP:CITE#CHALLENGED:

  ... find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion

In the edit comment you wrote "not acceptable". You need to give the reasons why you think it is not acceptable, so that we can reformulate it if necessary. Either way, we need to attribute whose opinion that is. As you seem to have a strong opinion on this, why not give us a sentence, accurately and in an NPOV way attribiting the view, that you would find "acceptable", for us to consider. Here is my original version, the one that you reverted:

A 2006 study by CNW Marketing Research, Inc. and characterised by the advice columnist of the U.S. environmental organisation Sierra Club's website as discredited, calculated the overall energy cost of a Prius at US$3.25 per mile ($2.02/km) and a Chevrolet Tahoe SUV at US$2.94 per mile ($1.83/km).

-- de Facto (talk). 11:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT make demands of me or any other editor. I answered your question as well as I am going to. The specific edit in question here is not acceptable because it represents a minimization of the word "discredits" by inferring that only one source actually discredits the CNW research. Your edits to this article have been very non-constructive and disruptive. Your opinion is in the minority, it is time to drop it, stop beating this dead horse and move on. If you refuse to do that, then you leave no choice but for the group of editors here, who you are disagreeing with and essentially badgering to justify themselves when we've justified our edits over the last several weeks on this talk page, to escalate this issue to Mediation or AN/I.

For the record, WP:CITE is not a policy, it is a style guideline, so that doesn't quite apply here. A good wikilawyer should know the difference. But the request has been met by the next paragraph of the article, and by the fact that CNW discredited their own research. If you can't understand that, then we can proceed no further. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, if you're going to go to third opinion, you may want to have them look at the whole discussion, which includes the above "Stumbling Blocks" that spawned this response, not just this part. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the one outstanding disagreement in this specific discussion (so far between just 2 editors) is about whether a particular point of view (that the report is "discredited") should be attributed to the person who made it in the reference eventually, and after prolonged discussion, supplied. -- de Facto (talk). 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Per a request at WP:3O, I have reviewed the section in question and some of the dispute above. I would like to note that my wife and I own a 2006 Prius with 30,000 miles on it in 18 months, and I was so impressed with its engineering and value that I bought a 2007 Corolla (for $10,000 less) 3 months after purchasing the Prius. 18 and 15 months later, respectively, I remain very impressed with both vehicles. I don't think this affects my reading of the section or above controversy, but is probably appropriate for me to disclose.

Now, to specifics:

1. I think the title of the section could be viewed as a personal attack and does not do much in the way of assuming good faith. This is a minor point but still kind of significant because it would be easy to see how someone coming to the talk page might think there is a personality conflict at work here by naming an editor as part of the title of the dispute / discussion.
2. Perhaps the edit summary in question is somewhat provocative, but it seems to me that a single edit summary should not be taken out of context, and should also not be given undue weight. Let's focus on the content.
3. I think that to open the paragraph with the word "discredited" is really not in line with WP:NPOV. Personally (see my disclosure above), I love the Prius, and it might be my preference to see that such a study is identified as discredited as early as possible in its discussion. However, as an editorial point, I think that putting that up front shows too much bias. I would rather see the word "discredited" removed entirely; the paragraph is pretty clear that several other sources have a differing opinion. I think our job is mainly to let the facts speak for themselves. What we think is really not important here. The important thing is to let readers have enough information, with as little bias as possible, so that they can either form their own opinion (if necessary), or know where to find more information (if desired).
4. Having said all that, there's not even a link to the original study - discredited or not - and there is no cite for the conclusions we are claiming the study reached. As it is somewhat controversial and likely to be challenged (hence the reason for this discussion), it may be appropriate to remove it altogether. (I'd rather see a valid cite, though.)
5. I think a link to the updated study's spreadsheet is a primary source and not of much use in this article. We should have a citation that evaluates and comments on the spreadsheet rather than the spreadsheet itself; otherwise we are either in or very near original research territory.
6. The subsequent wording about the assumptions of the Prius lifetime vs. an SUV lifetime are likewise inappropriate. We are giving the impression that lifetime assumptions and economies of scale are the only possibilities for the change in values from one study to the next. That represents WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH to me.

I think we can improve this section with not a whole lot of work, especially if there is agreement to focus on the content rather than a dispute. There's a bunch of good material to work with.  Frank  |  talk  16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Frank for that thoughtfully considered contribution. I apologise if the title came across as a personal attack, that was certainly unintentional. Now we should put our differences behind us, take Frank's advice, and tidy up this section, to present readers with a balanced, and comprehensive description of the story here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors we evaluate content based on a variety of criteria. My opinion is that that study is old, discredited, and we shouldn't give it any credit by including it in the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Daniel.Cardenas. Delete it entirely. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 4. The link to CNW's "non-technical" version of the report was actually removed by DeFacto himself in this edit.

Re: 6. This passage about Prius and SUV lifetimes is obsolete - page 47 of the CNW report and CNW's Why 100,000 Miles for Prius? explain some of their rationale for the mileage estimates. I'll create a new section below for the points from these documents.

I've argued before that the "worse than Hummer" claim and the assumptions such as low mileage leading to that claim should remain documented in the article to inform readers who have heard the urban legends and are looking for information debunking or confirming them, but after going through all the points below, I'm not as sure as the first time: for many of the claims, CNW admits figures are changing and will change, so there is no dispute that the original report is no longer correct. I've still heard the rumors about the battery (nickel mining pollution, difficult to recycle, wears out quickly and very costly to replace) circulating and they still need to be refuted, but the "worse than Hummer" claim was so patently absurd from the beginning that it may have had difficulty circulating after the initial "man bites dog" press coverage, which may explain why I've heard less of that charge lately. --JWB (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Re: 4". That reference is in the article currently, and as you may remember, I said in response to one of your arguments before (it's somewhere in this lot): "I tend to agree that the CNW reports should be cited, as they are the subject, but synthesis of what they are saying, and what critics are saying about them should only be from secondary sources, as I've already said (many times now) and certainly not from OR." -- de Facto (talk). 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Points in CNW's "non-technical" version of the report and Why 100,000 Miles for Prius? followed by discussion

1. "It should also be pointed out that on a Dust to Dust basis, the Estimated Miles doesn't mean the vehicle is "used up" and has no life remaining, only that this is the approximate mileage at the time it is removed from the streets as a daily-use vehicle and sent for disposal as either a source of parts or eventually scrapped." (report p.19) "Can the Prius be driven more than 100,000 miles? Of course. The vehicle is superbly engineered. But this assumes the average Prius driver begins using the car more often." (in Why 100,000)
   1. The existing description in the article that Frank mentioned in his point 6. assumes the mileage estimate is based on CNW's estimate of durability, when it is actually an estimate of usage.
2. "The typical hybrid small vehicle such as the Prius is driven far fewer miles each year than a comparably sized budget car. And for good reason. Like Upper Premium Sports cars, these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods." (report p. 47)
   1. CNW's research was done in 2005 when far fewer Prius had been sold, and the longest-term track record available for Prius would have been from the even smaller number of cars sold in the first year or two. It's possible that some proportion of the first buyers of the then-unknown vehicle got it as a toy, but this is unlikely to be true of the much larger number of buyers up to the present, or future buyers. CNW does briefly acknowledge that "The latest data shows Prius owners are driving more than early Prius owners and the use of the vehicle is becoming a primary means of transportation in a household rather than a novelty." but says that "the average annual mileage, outside of certain southern-tier states, remains barely above 7,000 per year." (in Why 100,000)
   2. The reference to "small vehicle" suggests the 2001-2003 Prius, not the 2004+ version which is a midsize car. Sales of the current Prius now outnumber the Classic Prius by more than 10:1.
   3. Low mileage translates to higher cost per mile, but not to higher total cost.
   4. Most importantly, the mileage driven by previous owners does not determine the mileage that will be driven by an individual buyer, who has a given transportation need, is weighing Prius vs. other vehicle(s) as alternatives for driving the same mileage, and is trying to evaluate monetary or energy cost for each. CNW's press releases and ensuing media coverage (including reprints displayed on CNW's site) have explicitly misrepresented the study results as relevant to an individual buyer.
3. "Second, competitive vehicles to Prius are being planned by virtually all automakers using either Prius-like dual-mode or plug-in hybrid technology (e.g. Chevrolet Volt). This competition, looking at the historic context which is all we can do, is likely to drive the value of older technology Prius models lower. We've already seen the early stages of this happening with decreasing used values for all of the original batch of hybrids." (Why 100,000)
   1. This assumes Prius and other hybrids compete with each other, but not with other cars. If better vehicles obsolete the Prius, they will obsolete less efficient vehicles even more; therefore this is no basis for arguing the Prius is inferior to other current vehicles.
   2. Prius's retention of resale value has set records, contrary to what he suggests here.
4. "the movement of a vehicle through the marketplace adds to the overall energy costs. Put simply, the longer a vehicle remains in the hands of the first buyer, the less impact it has on global or social energy consumption." (report p. 49)
   1. No reasoning is given for the asserted difference between first owner and subsequent owners.
5. "surveys of Prius owners by us and other research companies show barely 16,000 miles average life for original-equipment tires compared to 43,000 for Toyota Corolla. This high-tech tire uses a compound and design that reduces rolling resistance and thus improves fuel economy. But the typical replacement tire for a Prius will not likely be the OEM specialty variety, cutting both fuel economy and distance-per-battery charge of the Prius."
   1. This may refer to the Classic Prius's tires, which were changed in the newer model.
   2. I now have normal road tires on my 2004 Prius and have noticed no change in fuel economy.
6. "As for Hummer, much of the design, development and manufacturing energy costs are spread across more than just this single model. (One of the original and recent Prius disadvantages, quickly being turned around.) In addition, the platform, power train and other mechanical components are shared with a variety of other GM products and have a significantly longer post-disposal life in the replacement market. Higher volume of components speeds manufacturing and reduces energy per-unit costs. Add the simplicity of disposing of the Hummer and the entire per-mile cost becomes lower even though the fuel economy is staggeringly worse than Prius. "
   1. The Hummer H1 and H2 are not even made by GM. The H3 is indeed based on a GM truck platform. CNW's comparison is based on the H3 (only available from 2005) then described simply as "Hummer" encouraging the reader to think the result applies to the H1 (available since 1992 and used by the military since 1985).
   2. Engine and many other components in the Prius are shared with other Toyota vehicles.
   3. Volume of Prius sales are now far ahead of Hummer and far ahead of 2005 and earlier, so economy of scale should help Prius in comparison.
   4. The charge that the Prius is difficult to recycle is a topic in itself and refuted elsewhere.
7. "Much of the focus of energy usage, dependence on fossil fuels and emissions revolves around discussions of fuel economy. And while this is not the largest component in the overall "Dust to Dust" analysis, it deserves central mention simply because it is the most visible area to the public." (p.69)
   1. According to other sources, energy used in fuel consumption is typically greater than energy used in manufacturing by a factor of about 10:1.
8. CNW claims "family fleet actual mpg" for Prius owners among a sample of 6500 households averaged 29.6 mpg. (p.72)
   1. Confusing format that makes it appear 29.6 mpg is for the Prius rather than for multiple vehicles.
   2. CNW doesn't say how many Prius owners were among the 6500.

Please comment below and quote if necessary. --JWB (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My comments and opinions on various of the points.

1. Re: 1. This is what I have attempted to explain all along. The life mileages used for the $/mile calculations were, as far as I know, never claimed to reflect vehicle durability, just reflections of observed typical, average, mileage over a vehicle's economical life. Implications may have been made in media reports, or readers may have made false assumptions based on their own comprehension skills. These "misunderstandings" should not be used to imply that the report's writers were making particular claims about the durability, or quality of the Prius. This is the main reason why I questioned the relevance of the Canadian taxi "evidence" in the article. It seemed to be being used to imply (WP:OR) that CNW were suggesting that the Prius could never be that durable. In my opinion, they were not.
2. Re: 2.1. Precisely. The calculations were likely to be perfectly valid for the time at which the data was collected.
3. Re: 2.3. CNW explained their reasons for using the "per mile" metric (see pages 8 & 9 of the big pdf).
4. Re: 2.4. Can you expand upon this point and quote the "misrepresentations" please.
5. Re: 3.1. I think the point is that it will render the Prius technology "old fashioned", so less desirable. Conventional cars, which are not competing on the "technology" front, will not be impacted.
6. Re: 3.2. The "prophecy" hasn't been fulfilled yet.
7. Re: 5.2. You'd need to subject it to the rigours of the "official" tests to see the difference. Many "ECO" model cars rely on tyre differences to achieve better official ratings than their similar non-ECO stable mates.
8. Re: 7.1. CNW, apparently, took account of many more manufacturing "overheads" than other studies, such as factory employee travel energy use, material shipping energy etc. The RMI state in their "Checking Dust to Dust’s Assumptions about the Prius and the Hummer" document, in which they compare the CNW data with the GREET model: "We recognize that the GREET model does not include the transportation of the materials used to make the car, which could be a significant contribution."[5]
9. Re: 8.1. They clarify it with this: "For example, the fuel economy within the family fleet of vehicles varies only slightly when a hybrid is added to the mix." at the end of page 71. What else could that imply?
10. Re: 8.2. The table on page 72 gives Prius as the primary vehicle in 16.3% of HH, and secondary vehicle in 83.7% of HH. HH being the 6,500 households surveyed.

Do you think we are likely to find reliable secondary sources with analysis at this level, to allow us to cover it all in the article?

-- de Facto (talk). 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. CNW does make many insinuations against the durability of the Prius. They just don't make computation of the extremely low lifetime mileage estimate rest on those hypothetical and mostly unquantifiable insinuations, but this is only evident after a careful reading of the report, as I found.
2. Our job is to make it clear what CNW is actually basing on, since it apparently was "misinterpreted" in all secondary reports.
3. CNW does not explain reasoning for "cents per mile" beyond saying that it is easy for consumers to understand. Well, total lifetime cost and cost per year or month would both be even simpler. And given that CNW's determination of mileage is unintuitive and generally misunderstood, the "cents per mile" based on it is no longer simple at all.
4. Passages stating or implying relevance to the individual buyer:
   1. p. 6: "research that could be explained to the public in a way that would add to the general population's knowledge about the energy cost of the vehicles they drive."
   2. p. 8: "findings that could be used by average consumers rather than just technicians, engineers and scientists."
   3. p. 10: Initial CNW press release first announcing report (apparently what the media stories were based on): "We believe this kind of data is important in a consumer's selection of transportation,"; no mention that comparison is based on different previous buyers with different usage, not the individual prospective buyer.
   4. p. 19-20: Report's first discussion of basing figures on different previous owners, and that mileage estimates are not based on when car wears out.
   5. p. 27: "It is important to look at the above data in a more organized way that consumers can understand and is more useful in terms of comparison."
   6. p. 35: "somewhere in the equation that consumer may wish to include the overall energy cost to society." No mention that figures are based on varying owners' usage, not on the consumer's prospective usage.
   7. Secondary coverage reposted on CNW site: "The Prius registered an energy-cost average of $3.25 per mile driven over its expected life span of 100,000 miles. Ironically, a Hummer, the brooding giant that has become the bête noir of the green movement, did much better, with an energy-cost average of $1.95 over its expected life span of 300,000 miles. ... Such information should be of major concern to senior citizens - especially those on a fixed budget." No mention "expected life span" is not actual life span, but just a claim users will drive the Prius little and the Hummer a lot.
   8. "Fully armed with all the facts, seniors may want to zip down to their nearest Toyota dealer and trade in their Priuses for Scion xBs. That would be the equivalent of reducing their energy footprint from a size 24D to about a size 5A." No mention the cost/mile is based on different lifetime mileage projections; trading the Prius for an xB and driving the same mileage would give different results.
5. No justification was given for the claim that hybrids compete with each other on "technology" but not with non-hybrids. All cars have technology, including up-to-date electronics in recent decades. The only technology unique to hybrids is that providing high fuel efficiency, and all cars compete in fuel efficiency.
6. CNW does claim resale values have already dropped (contradicting other reports) and then uses this as the justification for claiming resale values will drop in the future.
7. Actual examples of this, especially of tire differences that make more than a small difference in fuel consumption, would be welcome. The difference would have to be huge to significantly affect lifetime energy consumption.
8. It is not credible that manufacturing overheads are so much higher as to overcome fuel costs 10 times as large as normal manufacturing costs. Other than the hybrid system, the Prius materials and manufacturing are similar to other cars. The claims about the Prius battery have been specifically debunked. CNW gives no specifics to substantiate this, but merely claims CNW has researched a lot of stuff others haven't, but that it won't actually tell us about.
9. Not evident at first glance at the table; I only realized it after noticing the anomalously low 29.6 mpg and looking for the cause. It is hard to understand partly because it is, unintuitively, reporting not just comparison between the Prius and other listed cars, but comparison between other unstated vehicles owned by the households owning those vehicles. It also lacks any statement of whether averages were per car model or weighted by mileage driven per car and/or per household, which would have helped point this out.
10. Notice the percentages sum to 100% not only in this row but all rows; therefore you are asserting that 100% of households own a Prius and also that 100% own each of the other models as well. What these percentages are actually saying that among the households with a Prius, 16.3% have it as a primary vehicle and the remainder have it as a secondary vehicle. The proportion of households that own a Prius is not stated. Evidently not only the media and I but also you are having trouble understanding what CNW's figures actually mean.

--JWB (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what this discussion has to do with this article. We are not technical researchers or investigators. If there needs to be this much discussion as to whether or not a source is reliable and suitable, it is a good sign that it is NOT reliable and suitable. I move to delete the section on CNW research completely.  Frank  |  talk  12:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs a mention, without all the OR analysis, simply because of its worldwide notability, and the liklihood that readers may come looking for information about it. I did try to condense the coverage (here), but my edit was quickly reverted. -- de Facto (talk). 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what www.snopes.com is for. If it were truly notable, we'd be able to find reasonable, independent sources that condense and discuss it in a scholarly, encyclopedic way, and there would be no need for this discussion. Absent such sources, I remain convinced this should be removed entirely from the article. It falls under the category of things which Wikipedia is not.  Frank  |  talk  15:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which have reported upon, and attempted to analyse the CNW report. Amongst those available online are:

• From The Car Connection: Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth
• From the Rocky Mountain Institute: Checking Dust to Dust’s Assumptions about the Prius and the Hummer
• From the Pacific Institute: Hummer versus Prius
• From the Australian newspaper The Age: Head-on in hybrids 2007-07-11
• From Slate magazine: Tank vs. Hybrid 2008-03-18
• From the UK What Car? magazine: How green is your car? 2006-10-04
• From the Washington Post: Fuzzy Climate Math 2007-04-12
• From Canada's Globe and Mail: Which cars are the greenest? You'd be surprised 2007-07-27
• From the UK The Independent: Jeep Wrangler: Is this the greenest car on sale? 2006-11-07
• From the San Francisco Chronicle: The Hummer vs. the Prius 2007-06-04
• From The Times of India: Woolly greens 2007-04-16
• From the UK's Daily Telegraph: Blue and green 2006-05-27
• From Canada's French language Le Devoir: Le Hummer plus vert que la Prius? 2007-08-03

-- de Facto (talk). 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I could add to (or subtract from) the discussion on several points above, based on my own personal ownership of both a Prius and a Corolla, but that would be as useless as a discussion of whether or not the research is pointed at an individual buyer. The point is that in neither case is it encyclopedic.  Frank  |  talk  12:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable and relevant to keep it in, as it is a major source of controversy regarding the Prius. It is unfortunate they can be cited because it is published by a 3rd party, however biased, but research such as mine cannot be (including a poll of readers at PriusChat indicating 80% of Prius owners drive their vehicle > 10,000 miles, in fact, the largest category was 20K to 30K miles/year, in direct contradiction to CNW's assertion the average user drives 7K miles/yr). I do understand the reasoning for inclusion of sources however. Nerfer (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quiet cars

The section on "Quiet Cars" presents only one point of view without including the only public hearing on the subject by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on June 23. As such, the current verision is terribly misleading. I am putting my comments back in and look forward to a free and frank discussion. Either cite the hearing or at least present the opposition. Censorship of this issue would be a terrible mistake. Bob Wilson. Bwilson4web (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)bwilson4web

The information about Lotus doesn't belong here. No problem to put information that is about the Prius, as long as it is verifiable and from reliable sources, but it still has to be about the Prius, which is the subject of this article. If you have such info and references to add, please go ahead and add them, or at least put them here on the talk page.  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On further reading, it's fine the way it is. I only deleted the bit about Lotus being a competing car company; it's not appropriate here. Users can click the link if they are interested, and it is certainly of no bearing in this article whether or not Lotus manufactures a hybrid vehicle.

If there's more info to add, let's get it in there, but not trivia.  Frank  |  talk  18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the Lotus information out. However, the public hearing and the traffic analysis by Dr. Hogan directly applies to the issue. Furthermore, there are two pieces of legislation, HR 5734, and the California bill, SB 1174 that directly apply and would make substantial changes to the Prius. The existing text cites only one source that repeated a press release by the advocates of HR 5734.

I am quite happy to edit to any style guide but not to the exclusion of critical content.

Bwilson4web —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably the easiest thing to do is to add your proposed edits here. We've already got some discussion going about other stuff above; let's get consensus before putting something in that may cause some editing controversy. As a side note, please add ~~~~ at the end of your posts to save poor SineBot from having to edit the page when you are done :-)  Frank  |  talk  18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The citation Bwilson4web gave is a specific document - it's just that www.regulations.gov does not seem to allow a direct URL to the document, but makes you type or paste the ID in a search box. --JWB (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Even so, it would be a primary document and almost certainly inappropriate. At any rate, searching for that document doesn't find what is referenced, and the edit that I removed was original research. Even if the document in question came up in a search (testimony by Dr. Christopher Hogan), it would be difficult to use a primary source document as a citation on Wikipedia. That's not what we're about. Also, I can link to documents on that site; right-click a PDF and click "copy URL" (or similar, depending on browser) to get a valid URL to save and link. But I couldn't find the one that was referenced (a hearing on 6/23/08).  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The URL can be right-click or on a Mac, use the "CNTL" option. There are 29 submissions to www.regulations.gov but the question of relevant, credible citation becomes a problem not only for www.regulations.gov but also for the existing article.

I have been monitoring the activity by the National Federation of the Blind and other blind advocacy organizations since April 2007 and have seen a familar pattern: (1) press release, and (2) echo in the media. Many times, a local reporter or editor will add some color but familar phrases continue to show up time and time again that trace back to a press release.

The Lotus paragraph in particular started with a world-wide press release that was quickly echoed in the usual industrial sources and then within two to three weeks picked up with local color in English language papers around the world. But I'm not here to close the discussion on this issue but rather to get if not all points of view, at least a fair representation of the counter claims.

Dr. Christopher Hogan's analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accident database is critical because it shows that available accident data does not support the hypothesis that hybrid electric cars are especially dangerous to pedestrians. His analysis brings a sense of balance to the discussion ... there is not a pile of dead blind bodies with Prius tire tracks over them. But if you read the blind advocacy group reports, there is already and there exists a severe and growing problem.

But the real issue is legislation, HR 5734 and the California bill. These bills declare hybrids to be dangerous without any empirical data. They remind me of the state legislature that passed a bill declaring Pi to be exactly 3. Worse, the "study" always ends with noise makers being regulated onto hybrid electric cars. This is the heart and soul of the issue, mandated, not fact based safety regulation.

By ommitting submissions from this hearing record because they might be "a primary document," we are giving credibility to just one side. The side that used press releases to define the problem without all of the facts and data. Dr. Hogan's effort to download and analyze the substantial US Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) to quanitfy the risks gets dropped.

Now I have 'skin in this game.' When my presentation as a hybrid electric owner was turned down, I spent just under three days, 1,400 miles and a goodly amount of money to attend the hearing and make my comments (these are in the transcript that is at www.regulations.gov.) Later, I spent four days and another 1,400 miles and another pile of money to collect petition signatures to get hybrid electric owners "a seat at the table." So I am committed to seeing a fair representation of the opposing point of view even though I am sure the Lotus "speakers" are a business tactic to throw an obsticle at their hybrid competition.

So I'm here to figure out how we can reason together and achieve concensus. But as the current two paragraphs exist, it is only one side and a terribly inaccurate one at that. Bwilson4web (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Among the many things Wikipedia is not are a battleground and a soapbox. Please identify which paragraphs bother you, and propose alternate text, with proper citations. We can't say "go to this site and search on this to get the info." That's not a citation. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else went before a Congressional hearing and gave testimony; if it isn't analyzed and reported elsewhere then usually we can't put it here. Remember that one of the most important things to keep in mind about Wikipedia is that it is about verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" doesn't mean "I heard it at that hearing", although it might be possible to include testimony if it is not given undue weight and is properly put in context.

I'm not being argumentative here - I'm trying to help. You must give us something to work with, such as specific edit suggestions and valid references to support them.  Frank  |  talk  02:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then can we at least identify the existence of the legislation? Something along the lines of:

Congress is considering legislation, H.R. 5734 to address the concerns raised by the blind. It implements "SEC. 5. MINIMUM SOUND REQUIREMENT FOR MOTOR VEHICLES." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110CsQ85Q)

Unfortunately, Thomas is 'search' driven versus a series of static URLs. Other equivalent sources with better behaved URLs: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-5734 or http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5734/text. For my purposes, knowing the legislation exists and the specific title to "SEC. 5." is sufficient.

I would also like to see the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration meeting and all submitted data made available. This simply points folks to where they can get a record of what was covered at the hearing. Combined, the paragraph would read:

Congress is considering legislation, H.R. 5734 to address the concerns raised by the blind. It implements "SEC. 5. MINIMUM SOUND REQUIREMENT FOR MOTOR VEHICLES." (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5734/text). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held a hearing June 23 on the subject and the record with all submissions is available from http://www.regulations.gov/ by searching for NHTSA-2008-0108.

Of the existing paragraphs, the "Lotus" one should be dropped or seriously reworked because there were two other vendors, Fairuz Schlecht , Fisker Automotives and Everett Meyer, Enhanced Vehicle Acoustics, who presented their solutions at the meeting. I also had lunch with Goran Bogdanovic of Creative Performance Products, who are working on another wireless solution. By giving Lotus a unique reference, it becomes an endorsement of just one solution to the exclusion of all others. I would recommend dropping it or something along the lines of:

Several independent companies and groups are investigating technical solutions ranging from noise generators to wireless systems including Fisher Automotive, Enhanced Vehicle Acoustics, Creative Performance Products, Lotus Engineering and 625k Inc. (see NHTSA submissions.)

At least now the field is open and Lotus no longer gets a free advertisement for their competing solution. The only problem is once we start listing companies and groups working on solutions or studies, it becomes a paragraph from hell ... it becomes the target of never ending updates. A simpler solution would be:

Several independent companies and groups are investigating technical solutions ranging from noise generators to wireless systems.

This acknowledges work is proceeding without giving undue bias towards anyone or any technology. Bwilson4web (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is appropriate to give that bill in the US House as much weight as shown above. This bill was introduced in April and apparently has not been voted on, and it's not clear that it would be voted on in this session of Congress. If not, it may well fall by the wayside, as many bills do. Even so, I think to characterize it as "considering legislation" is giving it too much significance. Regarding the NHTSA hearing, I still think that we must do better than telling readers to search somewhere for something as a reference to an article. If it hasn't been covered elsewhere, it seems non-notable to me. An article would possibly be deleted if its sources were listed as "go search here"; I think if that's the case about a paragraph, the same standard should apply. Regarding the "several independent companies and groups...", I think it's fine and it's correct to avoid naming companies, and furthermore (as someone pointed out above) that trying to keep current on the companies involved in trying to get this technology going would be a pointless endeavor.  Frank  |  talk  18:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

HR 5734 may disappear with this Congress, no Senate equivalent has shown up. But a virtual copy of HR 5734 passed both houses in California, SB 1174, and is on the Governor's desk. The legislative effort to "Bell the Hybrid" remains a risk even if the specific bill identifier or government changes. Perhaps the best solution is to add two sentences to the first paragraph and delete the Lotus paragraph:

The Wall Street Journal reported in February 2007 on concerns that quiet cars like the Prius may pose a safety risk to those who rely on engine noise to sense the presence or location of moving vehicles.[76] Blind pedestrians are a primary concern, and the National Federation of the Blind advocates audio emitters on hybrid vehicles,[77] but increased risks may also affect sighted pedestrians or bicyclists who are accustomed to aural cues from vehicles. In July 2007, a spokesperson for Toyota said the company is aware of the issue and is studying options[78]. In 2008, Federal and California legislation were introduced to mandate a minimum sound level (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h5734/text, http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1151-1200/sb_1174_bill_20080822_enrolled.pdf)

Several companies and groups are investigating solutions.

If the last sentence needs citations, keep the Lotus reference and add (http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/21/singing-prius-lotus-tech-science-cz_cf_0821prius.html) This solves acknowledging both the legislative as well as commercial efforts without being tied to any given bill or giving an implicit endorsement of one company. I have no problem with adding references from the two companies that presented at the June 23 hearing, increasing the number of companies and groups to four. Bwilson4web (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing cars from the UK list

Looking at the cited source for official fuel-efficiency in the UK, there are eleven cars which are more fuel-efficient than the Prius, yet the article now asserts there are seven. The UK list only requires cars which are sufficiently different from each other to be tested. Note that differing trim levels are not identified, and even 3 and 5 door cars are lumped together (as for the VW Polo). It appears that "editor discretion" (see WP:OR) has been used to eliminate four cars - which four and why?. -- de Facto (talk). 18:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is:

SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI 80PS Ecomotion

VOLKSWAGEN Polo 3 / 5 Door 1.4 TDI (80 PS) BLUEMOTION with DPF

MINI MINI Hatchback R56 MINI Cooper D Hatchback - with particle filter

->MINI MINI Clubman R55 MINI Cooper D Clubman - with particle filter

CITROEN C1 1.4HDi

SKODA New Fabia 1.4 TDI 80PS Green-Line with DPF

->SKODA New Fabia Estate 1.4 TDI PD 80PS Green-Line with DPF

FIAT 500 1.3 16v MultiJet

FORD New Fiesta, 2009 Model Year Onwards 1.4 Duratorq TDCi (68PS)

->FORD New Fiesta, 2009 Model Year Onwards 1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS)

->FORD New Fiesta, 2009 Model Year Onwards 1.6 Duratorq TDCi (90PS) (+DPF)

TOYOTA Prius 1.5 VVT-i Hybrid

Was that so hard to figure out? The four in question have the same car model names, with same transmissions, but different engine configurations for the Fiesta or in the case of the Skoda Fabia and Mini, different body styles. To call them different cars is perhaps misleading to the reader. If we had the space, it could be presented in more detail, but the article is already too long. Nerfer (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates why we need to use the source data as is, and not apply our own analysis of what we think it is showing. The MINI MINI Hatch is not the same car as the MINI MINI Clubman. The Hatch is 3709 mm long, the Clubman 3945 mm. The Hatch weighs 1165 kg, the Clubman 1175 kg. The Hatch achieves 62 mph in 9.9 sec, the Clubman takes 10.4 sec. The Hatch emits 104 g/km CO₂, the Clubman 109 g/km. Similarly, the Fabia and Fabia Estate are also different cars. Two of the Fords you say are the same actually have different engines! -- de Facto (talk). 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are diesels being compared at all? As we went through earlier, diesel fuel has higher energy density. At VCAcarfueldata.org.uk, the best diesel gets 74.3 and the Prius gets 65.7 which is 88.425% of that figure, or 11.575% less, comparable to the difference in energy density. The closest petrol competitor is the Toyota Aygo at 61.4. --JWB (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Four edits rolled-back - why?

I can only assume that this edit was performed by mistake. It wiped-out four fully commented, and apparently reasonable edits. If it wasn't accidental, perhaps the editor would be courteous enough to describe the reasons for undoing each, in turn.

Here are the four "lost" edits with expaned reasons:

edit 1: This has been discussed at length here. At least three editors expressed concern over the use of the word "discredited", one saying "I think that to open the paragraph with the word "discredited" is really not in line with WP:NPOV", and "I think that putting that up front shows too much bias", so it is probably best to leave it out. However, as one or two editors appear to insist on keeping it (and it wasn't removed in the undone edit), then it needs to be put into context, and attributed as to whose opinion it is. The word cannot be left, which, as far as we know from the reference, is only the opinion of one commentator, unattributed. That could be misleading, and may lead a reader to believe it to be a fact rather than the opinion of a single individual. If it is a more widely held opinion, then better references are required to support that.

edit 2: The reference provided doesn't support the use of the word "considerably", or that diesel is more expensive anywhere other than the United States. We either need to adopt wording similar to that which was reverted, or provide a reference which actually supports what is written.

edit 3 and edit 4: The supplied reference is useless without the details of a precise model. We need the precise details, or a better reference.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No mistake. The edits did not appear reasonable upon examination and it made sense to revert them in whole. You keep POV pushing in the same areas and "discussion" here with you goes nowhere. I will not back down an inch on CNW as the summary descriptor has been credited and is NECESSARY when introducing a pseudo-study. Editors have compromised by allowing the CNW bunk in the article only for notability, not for accuracy or credibility, and this must be fully reflected in the article. Calling it a "study" without noting it's lack of credibility would be misleading/prejudicial to the reader. There is no dispute about its lack of credibility. I'm sure this won't stop you from continuing to revert it, but I'm not going to sit by and watch your POV insertion into the article. Red Harvest (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the CNW report is as bad as you suggest, then why do so many other editors disagree with you, and why can't you find any reliable sources to support your increasingly isolated stance?

What about the other three unrelated casualties of your edit that I listed above? What is unreasonable about expecting supporting references for those, or adapting the wording to comply with what the supplied references are actually saying? -- de Facto (talk). 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't disagree with me on CNW. They disagree with you and the anti-Prius POV pushing that you continuously engage in here. But you never stop, you just wikilawyer incessantly as if this was some great debating society. Nobody wants to rehash stuff 1,000 times because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF CONSENSUS. Restarting the debate everytime you don't get the answer you want is unacceptable, and I'm not going to entertain it. Instead, I'm going to revert it each time you change it because the discussion ended long ago.

Your other edit to the use of the word "considerable" was a MISREPRESENTATION (a frequent characteristic of your edits.) The reference is to updating data sets that show the price per gallon. No reasonable person is going to argue with considerable as an accurate summary of the graphs.

There has been ongoing debate about your other edits and I did not agree with your changes to other's material. I find that you continuously misrepresent data and subjects and do not show good faith in your editing. Red Harvest (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Hi, I have reviewed this issue thoughtfully and have to say that the four edits made should not be allowed to occur and that the page as is is the most appropriate version. The four edits certainly seem to be pushing a WP:POV and that is against one of the three pillars of Wikipedia, that of WP:NPOV. The tone of the comments in this debate really need to be toned down (on both sides). I specifically feel that some of the comments have contributed to this issue. I'd suggest a halt and to accept the article as it is, failure will probably need to go to WP:ARB for the conduct of this debate. Good luck! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fr33kman, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I must admit to being mystified by your conclusion though. You say the four edits seemed to be pushing POV. The edits were designed to improve verifiability, another of the three core "pillars".

Have you got time to give a more detailed reasoning for your criticism of each of the edits please?

• Do you think that the use of the word "discredited" is justified, and reliably and verifiably sourced (the subject of the edit 1).

• No, not really. It needs more than just that one source. You can't discredit one study with one source, it takes more and indeed general consensus from a group of academics usually. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think that this cited reference supports the phrase "diesel is considerably more expensive [than gasoline] in some parts of the world, including the United States", particularly the word "considerably" and for "parts of the world" other than the US (edit 2)?

• Yes, but the wording in the article needs changing ('considerable' is a soft-word; what does it mean to you/me/them?) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think that this reference supports the phrase "The Prius gets 11.575% lower mileage than the best diesel" with no clue as to which vehicle is the best diesel to search for (edit 3 and edit 4)?

• Yes, but it's confusing and without an expert explanation of the carbon bonding properties of diesel versus petrol it's best left out to let the reader look it up for themselves. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

-- de Facto (talk). 19:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That reference is not a search by name; it is a search by fuel consumption bracket. The lowest metric bracket or third highest mpg bracket (the first and second are empty) will give the highest-mileage cars with highest at the top. Please at least look at the reference before you complain. --JWB (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite clear, thanks. However, without a model (and its figures actually) the reader cannot easily see where the stated numbers have come from, especially as that database changes on a regular basis. Do you think that my modification added or removed clarity and transparency? -- de Facto (talk). 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take them one at a time; edit 1 The word "discredited" is a minefield and it does put forth a POV (that of the discrediter) therefore, unless 3rd party verification that the study was discredited, and how, can be obtained along with references supporting that person's opinion, the comment should not stand. edit 2, should read "... and that diesel is more expensive in some parts of the world, including the United States." edit 3, should not be included at all as it compares apples and oranges and would lead to confusion with the reader. Better to compare Prius with petrol cars and hybrids. To try to compare MPG(diesel) with MPG(petrol) is not helpful and possibly misleading without any intention. Add to this the fact that one is an electric hybrid and the other is not and it becomes impossible for the layman to understand without specialist advice (beyond Wikipedia). edit 4, same reasons as for edit 3. This article is not very far from a solution. I propose the changes I've laid out above and provide an external link to the UK data, reader's can look it up for themselves. It's not our job to spoon-feed our audience. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clearer now. For edit 1 we should probably exclude the word "discredited" given the lack of credible references. For edit 2, do you think that the non-U.S. parts of the world are supported by the cited reference - I don't? Do you think that we should reduce it to "... and that diesel is more expensive in the United States" pending a reference being found to cover "other" parts of the world? The problem I see with edits 3 and 4 is that the external reference is to a live database which is updated frequently, so the "current best" may change periodically, so really an exact model and the figures used for the calculation need also to be stated in the article, as they may have changed by the time a reader looks them up - leading to difficulties verifying them. -- de Facto (talk). 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, for edit 2 that's not a good enough reference, try here. For 3&4, that's why it's best not to include the information, let the reader find out for himself which is the best car for them by looking it up like you and I did. The best car is always changing. Even a paper encyclopedia would have the same issue. Otherwise a notice that the information is possibly out-of-date is appropriate. Either way, it's still tough to compare a hybrid/petrol car with a conventional diesel. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the comparison should be among petrol vehicles, with a note that a few diesel vehicles exceed Prius mileage per volume by a factor similar to the ratio of energy content of the two fuels. Since this is a UK comparison, UK prices are most relevant. Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing is a relevant article to link for further information, although that article needs more data. Also, the Mini is a much smaller car than the Prius; I'm not familiar with the Ibiza. --JWB (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that this makes a good deal of sense. Compare some petrol cars with the Prius (very appropriate to do, above and below the efficiency of the Prius) and state that there are examples of diesel cars that may indicate a greater fuel economy. That way it's not "apples and oranges" directly and the reader can do the work, or not, to decide what the true picture is taking into account the information Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing. I think this shows a good attitude towards compromise and should be something all can live with! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to keep up with this so I'll focus on "discredited." It was used as a summary for the 3rd party analysis of CNW's claims (and others). The reference part to the specific word is thanks to de Facto's insistence. I could have used "fatally flawed" or some such if I considered direct attribution necessary from the most detailed analysis. I did not because "discredited" is less POV'ish and more exact as a summary. Referring to what amounts to marketing material as a "study" is POV'ish on the other side as it implies that those publishing it had some expertise in the area, used scientific method, were peer reviewed, etc. This creates an interesting problem because CNW's media savvy spun this as something it was not, credible. One could substitute "partisan" perhaps, but it still does not get at the heart of the matter: by Wiki standards the study was not credible/reliable, yet de Facto would force us to treat it as if it were by using a much higher level of proof for calling it what it is: discredited. This is an absurd Catch 22. If someone can come up with a better description of what to call CNW's claims, I would be interested in hearing it and applying it. Let me make one thing clear, if CNW's methods and conclusions had been proven or found credible by third party analysis then I wouldn't be arguing this side of it, despite their lack of credentials. It is not CNW's POV I object to, it is the pseudo-scientific method behind it used to make "extraordinary claims" that they cannot back up, and which cannot be reproduced. CNW themselves have since published results revealing the original results of their study were producing the wrong conclusion about the Prius. The kindest word for this is "discredited." If there is any credible 3rd party who has taken a look at CNW's claims and concluded they are justified then I would not use "discredited." Red Harvest (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs much stronger references, and scientific consensus, to be included. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fr33kman, "discredited" is a strong word to use and still keep NPOV. "Controversial" would be fine. The list of sources after that that disagree with the results speaks for itself. For the record, I don't agree with CNW's numbers at all (and I've studied them - I can rip holes in it that you can drive a Mack truck through), but that's my POV, and the integrity of wikipedia needs to be maintained or people won't trust the rest of the article either. I don't know of any reputable source that has backed up or even supported CNW's numbers and it's clear CNW itself is not neutral on the issue (despite Spinella's protestations). Still, it's a published article from an established company that carries some weight in this field, and needs to covered with some respect. Nerfer (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Second, "considerable" was used as a soft word on purpose. The difference in price is clearly significant (and these might be a better term) as Edmunds and others have shown in operating cost analysis comparisons between the Prius and diesels. Comparing diesel and gas effiency varies by nation/region/diesel regs, hence the reference to the U.S. and dataset to back it. Being that relative pricing is a moving target, it seemed best to use a soft word. Precise values for a moving target seem inappropriate. "Significant" (to the cost analysis) might be better, but "considerable" with respect to cost analysis is also true. "Decisive" could be used in reference to specific studies such as the Edmunds (IIRC) one I viewed a week or two ago. What really should be reconsidered is how soft the word "efficiency" is in this instance...cost efficient? volume efficient? emissions efficient? Red Harvest (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this makes a lot of sense. The term considerable is still too vague. If I'm a billionaire, I don't care: if I'm a farmer in Columbia I probably do. The better term is "significant" so use it! Be bold, If you think we've reached a solution, edit the page to what you think it is and let people talk about it! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Back now, I'll dig into these items once I figure out what all de Facto has done during my absence. Red Harvest (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the issues

I've been bold and, based on the discussions above, offer a first-pass attempt to resolve these issues with a mixture of minor edits to eliminate the odd "troublesome" word, and with some restructuring and the addition of an introduction to the 'Fuel consumption' section. We can explain the effects of diesel/petrol energy density differences and of diesel/petrol price differences on the calculations in the intro, thus removing the necessity to add provisos and convoluted scenarios at the end of each sentence in the main detail. -- de Facto (talk). 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bold as usual. This isn't the direction we were headed and appears to be more POV pushing. Move the goal posts again, sigh. Red Harvest (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Eleven diesel-powered cars, some of them smaller": If any of them are not substantially smaller, please let us know. The SEAT Ibiza article defines it as a supermini car, for example. Are any of the eleven not in this category? People often assume the Prius is a compact, but I believe it is classified as midsize. In the US it is an average size; in Europe it's likely bigger than most cars. It also has a surprisingly large internal capacity for its external size.

I don't have all the figures for the eleven at my fingertips, but I do have the figures for the Prius and for the Škoda Fabia Estate:

Car	Front leg room (mm)	Rear leg room (mm)	Luggage capacity (Litres)
Prius	811	727	408
Fabia Estate	858–1075	621–864	480

-- de Facto (talk). 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Checking the Wikipedia articles for the cars, they are all listed as in the supermini or in the even smaller city car category. The car classification for the Prius is large family car which is two categories larger, skipping over small family car. --JWB (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The car classifications are notoriously problematic, especially when sharing terminology across international borders. I don't think that internationally they are necessarily primarily based on the physical sizes of the vehicles, but on the target market, and on the target price-bracket. -- de Facto (talk). 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comparison should be made (this gives readers a starting point for themselves finding out more information). I agree that terms like "supermini", "sub-compact" & "family car" are meaningless in an international setting (probably even so in a domestic setting. I like the idea of providing dimensions or better yet, defining the categories by explaining the terms or linking to the relevant article. It would be best if a standardized set of terms was in use, but given marketing and politics that is not the case. It's up to us then to reach a compromise. I really think that we are very close to a solution here and that positions are closer than they seem. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Alternatively we would agree to make no comparisons whatsoever and allow the reader to do the homework themselves. This should be considered because comparisons are so hard to make; volume vs MGP, mass vs MPG, #seats vs MPG, this cat vs MPG, that cat vs MPG. It's all pretty meaningless in the end and experts could probably provide good cases why each comparison is wrong or shouldn't but used. What we are after here is the middle ground, the compromise that allows us to move on. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

De Facto, you're welcome to try to argue that. For starters, Car classification says nothing about price or target market, but mentions engine and interior space for each classification. The Mini, which I've seen, is way way smaller than the Prius. Trunk space is 14.4 cu ft if you don't put the back seat down, but many times as large if you do. --JWB (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of that article sums it up: "Car classification is subjective since many vehicles fall into multiple categories or do not fit well into any." The category hierarchy is not size based, as I said, it is more to do with "market segment". Many "compact executive" and even some "executive" cars are smaller, in terms of passenger and luggage space, than many "large family" and even some "small family" cars. Those categories on their own do not map size. -- de Facto (talk). 07:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fr33kman, take a look at Car classification. It does give mappings between US, UK, and European terms, so does seem to say you can compare classifications across countries. --JWB (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• That looks like a possible way forward. It already represents the "Wikipedia" view on the subject. The only proviso I'd have is that anytime such a term is used it must be linked to that page so that the reader can confirm it for themselves and also come to their own conclusions as to what each term used means. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• The categories may have mappings across countries, but as the categories do not on their own represent size; the metric we are, or at least were discussing; the fact that the categories can be correlated is irrelevant. -- de Facto (talk). 07:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

11% is one figure for the difference in energy density, but if we are going to give a figure, there should be a range, either with or without a central estimate.

Diesel costs vs. gasoline have varied over time as well as per country. It sounds like they have gone up recently in US and UK. Tax policy is often a reason for the difference. Many countries have differing taxes or subsidies for the two fuels. Also, it would not be efficient to have all diesel cars or all petrol cars even if one category turns out to have slightly greater efficiency - petroleum contains both light and heavy fractions that have to be used. j-JWB (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the technical issues, it is a hard one to provide direct comparisons for. Perhaps you could suggest wording something for inclusion in the article that explains this difficulty to the reader? I think that adding a comment that the price of diesel may not be more expensive locally to the reader would probably be a good idea also. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to put in some language later if it hasn't already been solved. Diesel does seem to be less expensive in some European countries, undoubtedly the ones where diesel is most popular. --JWB (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: That we provide no more than 6 comparisons (petrol or diesel), that there is a proviso that explains or links to the diesel price/energy issue as per above link (somewhere), and that any comparisons link to the comparison article provided by JWB. Can I ask if we can have consensus on this? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those conditions sound OK with me so far, but there are probably more issues, and we'll likely have to go over actual wording. Unfortunately I'll be leaving soon and gone for the rest of the day, though. Thanks for your effort! --JWB (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries about having to leave. Perhaps you could have a think about the wording during a down moment in what ever you're doing later and then we can all get together tomorrow and see where we stand. I think that we are very close to a solution here and want to thank you both for your civility towards one-another during the WP:3 process and for the spirit of compromise you are showing also! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to document concepts not give detailed feature analysis. I don't think that this article is the place to make comparisons between vehicles, but as you said earlier, to provide the tools to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

It appears to me that comparisons with individual vehicles will add bias to the article unless we are very careful, and is likely to provide an ideal opportunity to perform some original research. How will the vehicles to compare be selected? Which other attributes should be considered? Should criteria which the Prius doesn't perform well on (such as high-speed fuel consumption) be included? If we add comparisons with six vehicles which better the Prius's fuel-efficiency in the UK data, then we must expect comparisons with six vehicles which fall short on "official" fuel-efficiency data, but which out-perform Prius in other ways. Then should we accept up to twelve similar comparisons using the data from Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, United States, etc?

I think we should limit our cover to just explaining the fuel factors involved (mpg, price, energy content) and maybe the car attributes which may be important to individual users as you said before (seating capacity, luggage capacity, towing capacity, performance, or whatever), but these must be a fair balance of things the Prius does well, and things it does not so well. -- de Facto (talk). 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias certainly must be avoided, but I just wonder if you could comment about this. I've always seen comparisons of cars as an aid to the consumer (independent comparisons that is). I'd support no comparisons but I'd also support the addition of comparisons if they are sourced from independent sources and required no original research by the editor making them or by the reader. So, such a comparison should be taken from an independent automotive source, (examples such as; Whatcar, Which, AutoTrends etc., would probably fit the bill. If we can't find a comparison that is already made and requires no additional effort of ours to include, then we should consider including it perhaps. If not, then no comparison should be made. We should also perhaps look to other car articles here on Wikipedia as precedent of sorts. Comments? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that reliably sourced, and neutrally transcribed comparisons with other vehicles could have a place in this article, but I'm not sure that they belong under in the sub-section dealing with the official UK fuel-efficiency data. In a new section perhaps. In the "official fuel data" section we should stick to what can be supported in relation to the data. It should probably include supported criticism of the way in which the "official" tests are performed, and supported criticism of the relevance of that data to "real world" driving. I believe that the U.S. EPA received criticism of their ratings for the Prius, and recently reviewed their methodologies, resulting in adjustments, including the lowering of their ratings for the Prius. -- de Facto (talk). 13:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can buy that. If data is neutral, verifiable and relevant then it should be included in an encyclopedia article, even if it reflects negatively on the subject: to not would be WP:POV. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tread carefully with the assertion about the revised EPA methodology, DeFacto. The EPA has had problems with all cars not meeting EPA figures. Thus, the 2008 revision of the EPA's testing procedure reduces mileage figures for just about every vehicle sold in the United States; all previous figures have been modified to correspond with the new standard.[6] The EPA is reportedly considering another revision of testing procedure to deal with the issue of plug-in hybrids.[7] The Prius and other hybrids have been disproportionately affected by these revisions, but saying that the EPA made changes "including the lowering of their ratings for the Prius" is potentially a POV analysis, since it implies that other cars were unaffected. Sacxpert (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A vote to quantity "consensus"

Although I am coming somewhat late to this whole CNW study, I am a bit disturbed by its inclusion in this article. I'm concerned, first, by the source quoted at The Car Connection[8], where a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists says that the CNW test contradicts tests by MIT, Argonne, and Carnegie Mellon, not to mention Toyota's own tests (Toyota may not be a dispassionate observer, but presumably they know something about the lifetime costs of their own products). The Sierra Club's assessment of the study, I note, has now been excised from the article completely. The debate this has produced on the talk page is frankly breath-taking in both its volume and passion. For my part, I question the study's inclusion because of its relative lack of transparency, the confusion regarding its methods and assumptions, and the widespread criticism it has received. This is not to say that the CNW study is necessarily wrong, since heretical notions sometimes have a way of becoming accepted over time. However, it seems to me that the CNW makes extraordinary claims about the Prius, large SUVs, and the energy costs of each, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Given the attacks on its methodology, it seems that the very premises of the study are in question, and that its conclusions are not independently verified. Is one study really worth considering alone?

I appreciate that Wikipedia attempts to present a balanced argument. However, I also believe that sometimes, the very presentation of a counter-argument is a violation of the NPOV principle, by giving near-equal weight to assertions that lack adequate support.

Having laid out my own opinion, let me add a caveat. This talk page, and this article, do not more reams of metaphorical paper being expended in the same people talking past each other. I'm adding my perspective only because I have not really participated in the whole CNW study debate to this point.

I wish to make a modest proposal. Let's have a vote, without more crosstalk. I will say that it seems to me that both sides of this discussion are dogmatic, and the same people keep making more or less the same points; both sides do the same. I will pose the questions I think ought be asked, and ask that everybody with a vested interest in the subject simply answer "yes" or "no" to each question, and not re-iterate why they think that way (we can all read the thousands of lines above, after all). Then, at least we would have a more concrete idea of the consensus that exists, which is currently fragmented by many separate discussions, and evolving as more editors become involved. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy where the most editors automatically prevail, but I think it might be helpful, and perhaps then easier for everyone to agree to the standards that should be followed in editing this section. I hope that everyone with opinions on this issue will contribute, and do so succinctly, that we might simply gauge perspectives without further exposition upon them. Sacxpert (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote here

Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please continue polling :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Poll is indeed the better word Fr33kman, I stand corrected. As I said above, I'm trying to gauge consensus, not demand action based on a tally. I'd like to hear your answers to these questions, too. Sacxpert (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the Prius article include a discussion of the CNW study at all, given the debate over its validity?

• No. Sacxpert (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Red Harvest (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. It's far too unreliable either way. Won't answer the rest as I feel this way. It requires us to make a judgment about a piece of information rather than being able to rely on it. People pick up an encyclopedia because they are a lay-person, want an overview and want it to be fact, not POV. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. - Not as written, it's just too unreliable and discredited. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, do the revised figures for the 2008 CNW study obviate those from the original study, thus making the whole discussion of the study in the Prius irrelevant?

• Yes. Sacxpert (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Red Harvest (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If it should be included, does the controversy about the study and its conclusions warrant a separate page of its own on Wikipedia, with no more than a passing mention made on the Prius page? After all, the Prius is only one aspect of the study.

• Yes. Sacxpert (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. Red Harvest (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• No. No point in talking about an irreputable company. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe. - If more substance can be put together, but as-is, it reads like a hit piece. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Actually there already is CNW_Marketing_Research, but discussion on the dust to dust study is much abbreviated. I would like to see a link to that page added in the controversies section, and just leave it at that, but I'll let a braver soul figure out how to word it.Nerfer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the CNW study should be discussed in the Prius article, should the Sierra Club's critique of the study as "discredited" a) be included at all, and b) be mentioned & cited in the opening line of the paragraph?

• A) Yes. B) Yes. However, the phrase "discredited" warrants further scrutiny, or should be quoted directly and identified. Sacxpert (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• A) Yes. B) Yes. Red Harvest (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• A) Yes. B) Yes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• A) Yes. B) Yes. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone to read WP:V again. As you can see I've tagged the page with {{primarysources}}. Quite a few (most) of the sources in the controversies section are not acceptable for our purposes. Many of them are self published and simply can not be used. This is a Wikipedia rule and we must follow it.
This will have effects on the content of this section!

Please reread WP:V and I think we should get together tomorrow to discuss. Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to delete the CNW section yet? Red Harvest (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. We seem to have a strong consensus emerging, and Fr33kman's point that the CNW study forces a judgement call, rather than objective info, is well-taken. It's time to take it off the page. Sacxpert (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just go for it! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sacxpert (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed the polling but concur with removal of the CNW info completely, including the 2008 update, which is less well-documented than the original; two wrongs don't make a right.  Frank  |  talk  12:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I also missed the polling, that was done rather quickly. My concern is that quite a few people are familiar (at least in concept) with the original CNW study and they may come here looking for information on it. Also, in every discussion I've seen on this study, I've been the only one to bring up the 2007 (and now 2008) updates, which negate the result of the original study. I'd be more than happy to let it die, but obviously for some it hasn't yet. Nerfer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Polling can continue. Just because action was taking doesn't mean the polling stops. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

With the CNW section gone, does the page still need the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and "There is a dispute and an editor has requested a third opinion" tags, or is that resolved? After all, the ConsumerAffairs stuff is gone, too. Sacxpert (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Also shortens the article, which was long needed.Nerfer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This all happened rather quickly, I was only away for ten or eleven days! I still think, as others also appear to in some of the discussions above, that the CNW report needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article purely because of its notability and the way it has been used and abused by the media to both attack and defend the "green" credentials of the Prius. Whether we agree with its contents, or not, is not relevant - it was published, and it was widely reported upon and quoted - so it can legitimately be included. -- de Facto (talk). 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went for it and added a paragraph about CNW, but tried to be clear the details would be on the CNW page. I feel it needs to be addressed because of how well known it has become.Nerfer (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not! CNW is not a reliable source and therefore should not be in the article. We were unable to reach a compromise on the way of including this non-reliable source, so it must go. Red Harvest (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether the CNW report itself is reliable, or not, is not the issue here. The issue is whether the CNW report achieved sufficient notability. If it did, then it should be mentioned in the article, provided anything written is fully supported with reliable sources. -- de Facto (talk). 10:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It does need to be addressed. It needs at least an NPOV sentence, which may well link to the CNW article, mentioning at least the controversy created by the way that the CNW report was used, and the reactions it triggered. What is important though, is to avoid original research, and to provide a reliable source to fully support anything written. -- de Facto (talk). 10:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed and there was a clear consensus. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that consensus has been reached. The discussion always ends with disagreement. We have yet to arrive at a form of wording, to describe the issues arising from the CNW report, and the way it was used, acceptable to all interested parties. -- de Facto (talk). 19:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means general agreement, and there were 5 no votes for the CNW report. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, general agreement is required. What we currently have is a general disagreement. Some interested parties still believe that the CNW report should be covered. The result of a vote cannot be construed as demonstrating a consensus (Wikipedia is not a democracy). We need to cover the report because of its notability, and to do so we must arrive at a form of wording which is acceptable to all interested parties. We cannot block inclusion by claiming that a majority view to do that is the same as a consensus. See WP:PRACTICAL: " Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." -- de Facto (talk). 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what we have here is general agreement from editors who have been working on this article, and editors who came in from WP:30 Just because you don't agree with what many other users have to say (including others from outside) does not mean consensus has not been reached. Trying to convince others by throwing out the quote "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority" does not apply here. The word "typically" does not equate with "always". You are incorrect, and are now crossing into the realm of being disruptive. If you continue down this path, the next stop is WP:AN/I, since you refuse to abide by the consensus that has been attained by multiple parties. Nobody here is accepting your POV-pushing, I suggest you find something else to work on. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree that a true consensus, as opposed to a simple majority verdict, has been reached. Currently a notable, relevant and verifiable fact is absent from the article because editors could not reach agreement over the form of wording to use to describe it. If the fact is worthy of inclusion with a certain word included, but inadequately attributed, then I find it difficult to accept that the same fact becomes unworthy of inclusion with the word omitted, or even with the same word present but accurately attributed.
2. Please do not characterise my patient and good-faith attempts to resolve this issue as being "disruptive" or as "POV-pushing".

-- de Facto (talk). 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, but you have the minority opinion, and a very small minority at that. Two separate third opinions have shot down just about everything you have added to this article, and your contributions reflect a distinctive bias. You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, and right now, it is time for you to fold. You have crossed over from good faith and have entered into disruptive. I will not stand for it, and neither will other editors. Take a wikibreak, go work on something else for a while. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not personalise this discussion (see WP:NPA), or confuse mention of the CNW report with other article content disputes. Also, it wasn't me who added the latest CNW mention, it was User:Nerfer (here). Please concentrate on the logic of the discussion and avoid introducing red herrings. A notable, relevant and verifiable piece of information has been removed from the article. A majority result in a previous straw-poll, about a previous and much larger content, does not outweigh the legitimate and logical reason to accept Nerfer's latest addition. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, de Facto is going to pitch consensus and third opinion to the wind once more. The consensus reached was that there was no viable way of dealing with such a flawed/non-reliable study, therefore it should not be in the article. Red Harvest (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There were 5 no votes for including the full CNW discussion here - but there were 2 no votes, 2 yes votes, and one maybe (in which DeFacto did not vote) for making a reference to it and linking to another page for a full discussion. That other page already exists and has existed for some time (I didn't start it, I don't know when it came to be). CNW dust-to-dust report has cultural relevance, whether or not we agree with it or think it is a reliable source. (For the record, I don't agree with it or think it is reliable, ie. unbiased). Because of its relevance, people will come here looking for information on this subject and if they don't see it, they will think we're hiding something. I say put it out there (as a link to another page) and not hide anything. I can't believe I'm arguing for DeFacto but we've got a controversies section, to not include it there is silly and an obvious oversight.Nerfer (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The 5 no votes takes precedence. The other vote was "if" it should be included, and it has been decided it should not be included, so the later voting is irrelevent. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus develops from discussion and agreement amongst editors, and not from votes - currently there is no general agreement. In the last couple of weeks two editors have stated their support for including at least a mention of the CNW report, whilst three editors have disagreed. Either way, even if a consensus had been reached, it does not necessarily outweigh the logic for including a mention of the CNW report (see WP:PRACTICAL). Concentrate on the logic for inclusion/exclusion rather than on the personal POVs of a majority of a small number of editors.

What is the logical reason for excluding this, a relevant, notable and verifiable fact, from the article? -- de Facto (talk). 09:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. I don't know why you unnecessarily reopened this after the ridiculous amount of nonsense it has taken to finally resolve it. It doesn't belong on this page for the reasons already stated. Consensus was reached and nothing has changed with regard to this pseudo-study that would warrant reconsideration. (My first inclination in the past was to include the CNW bunk, but that was conditional upon granting it no more credibility than it deserved. Since the latter has been blocked, and the study itself is demonstrably non-scientific, then the reference to it in this article has to go.) Red Harvest (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has "reopened" anything. This discussion is still ongoing. The point is not how scientific, or otherwise the report is, the point now is whether the notable, verifiable and relevant fact that the report exists, and was very widely used in third party reports in relation to the Prius, should be excluded from this article. -- de Facto (talk). 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)