Talk:Chery

Headline text

My my this article is full of unreferences information, as well as speculation! I personally love "After selling a million cars in the US, they intend to". They haven't even sold one yet. Chery flunked crash tests in the US and Europe when they tried to bring their car there...even Perodua of Malaysia body designs are ranked higher than Chery. Let's see how they compete against newly #1 Perodua in Malaysia, equipped with modern Japanese Daihatsu engines. Then, the automakers would compete with Hyundai/Kia on the low end, a very strong company with a rock solid reputation. Likely Hyundai/Kia would squash Chery in a nanosecond.

Hi, if you make a statement like that please suplly a proper link to the US Federal Crash Test Standards document, instead of a local magazine, NPOV ? Mion 09:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"IP Rights" is a meaningless phrase. What rights were they accused of violating, if any? Themusicgod1 06:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fengyun

In this article: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/04/04/028879.html they talk about the 'Chery Fengyun' - which uses the same 1.6l four cylinder Tritec engine as the MINI Cooper and the Lifan 520. It's not mentioned here - any clue as to what it's like? SteveBaker 06:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Chery Fengyun is same model as Chery A11, and Chery Qiyun is same model as Chery A15. - 202.28.27.6 04:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Both are SEATs 78.174.182.186 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality, please?

I had assumed the article was, approximately, factually correct. Apparently that is also debated.

I just wished to request that the notion of "intellectual property" be done from a relatively neutral viewpoint rather than that of a pro-IP fanatic. The notion that "intellectual property" is as wrongheaded a notion as "slavery" is a legitimate part of the intellectual property debate, and it is NOT a given that everyone everywhere believes that current corporate interpretations of intellectual property law are legal, appropriate, or even binding when not strictly enforced.

Request to lock this article

There are too many vandalism. They are usually edit manufacturer and/or model name to fiction names. -- 118.172.167.215 (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad links

[edit] References
^ Moldova.org - Auto - News - Chery -> The corect URL http://auto.moldova.org/brands/chery-56-0-eng.html (Moldova.org - Auto - Chery)
^ Page Error : 찾으시는 Page의 URL이 잘못되었거나 없습니다

the second reference is Korean "Error 404".

202.129.54.210 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

奇瑞汽车 / 奇瑞汽車

I'm just beginning to edit namespaces on Chinese topics -- and where possible, I'd like to simplify the technical linguistic information. For instance, before a reader even learns that Chery is an auto company, there are 4 separate dictionary entries (English pronunication, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Pinyin). That's a lot.

Are there any Wiki guidelines as to when it is appropriate to delete either the Simplified or Traditional Chinese? In the case of Chery, 奇瑞汽车 / 奇瑞汽車, they differ by only the final character. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Many medias, include Chery Official Chinese website, are use Simplified Chinese 奇瑞汽车. I agree to delete the Traditional Chinese 奇瑞汽車. -- Love Krittaya (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Chery the exception

In response to the person who deleted the un-sourced header to the controversies sections ("Several lawsuits and copying claims make Chery the exception to a harmonious group of otherwise considerate, car-making State-owned enterprises in China") I do feel it's important to keep it.

Many private Chinese automakers' products have exterior design obviously inspired by that of foreign automaker's offerings. Few, perhaps only Chery, government-owned automakers in China do likewise. This is an important distinction.

Would re-wording the sentence make it more acceptable? Something like: "While Chery is a State-owned enterprise it cleaves more closely to the unseemly behavior of China's private automakers." If you think a re-wording is in order, please let me know or just make the changes you feel are needed. Fleetham (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think such a rewording would be good - the current sentence has a strange vibe to it, as if badly and directly translated from a Chinese government source. "Harmonious"? Your own explanation ("Many private Chinese automakers' products have exterior design obviously inspired by that of foreign automaker's offerings. Few, perhaps only Chery, government-owned automakers in China do likewise.") seems better than either of the other options.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy-cat designs

Looking for citations to support the section about Chery copy-cat models other than the QQ, all I could find for the claim that the Chery Tiggo is a RAV4 look-a-like is this, which states, "Chery Tiggo is a complete copy of Toyota RAV4". But unless anyone has strong objections, I think the claim should be removed from the page instead of supporting it with this citation. From looking at the side-by-side comparison pictures that source provides, I fail to see how they came to the conclusion they did. It is obvious the Tiggo is not a "complete copy of the Toyota RAV4". Fleetham (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a complete copy, but it certainly looks a lot like the RAV4 (except the front, which is more like a Honda CR-V). See here, here, and here, and here. Obviously there are going to be more links in Russian, since it is sold in that market, but evidence of the pictures alone means that this content needs not be deleted. And most certainly not without previous conversation, as I have already asked you to do countless times. Babone car has already provided a cite, and also removed the QQ3 and A1 - but in a polite and proper fashion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And also Chery and Chevy is very similar, with General Motors sued them for having the Chery QQ having EVEN interchangable parts (no joke) with the Chevy Spark. And Chery used an disguised Spark for the crash-tests. 78.174.182.186 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussions copied from talkpage of Rangoon11

Below discussions copied over. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi, I noticed you recently reverted an edit of mine to the Chery page stating it "removed factual info". The only info I'm aware my edit removed was a mention in the lead that the company was the 4th largest Chinese automaker, which I know to be false. Please let me know if I inadvertently removed other info. Fleetham (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You made a very large number of changes within a single edit. As a general point this is not a good idea as it makes it far more likely that the edit will be reverted.

I have a few issues with the changes which were made:

1. I dont agree with the addition of 'Unlike any other state-owned Chinese car maker, Chery has been embroiled in allegations of intellectual property theft.', in a three-line lead this is highly undue and somewhat hysterical.
2. Important and relevant details about the JV with Jaguar Land Rover, and a relevant cite, were removed.
3. I do not like edits which state 'It may have', if something is speculation it should not be included, if it is fact then it should be stated as such.
4. Details were removed about R&D investment which were cited and relevant.
5. 'most-productive' means something quite different from total output, productivity concerns output per employee or per capital employed. I am also resistant to removing the production data from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, which is a highly reliable and respected source. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Those other issues aside, please take a look at these two sources to see that Chery is far from being the 4th largest Chinese automaker: news piece, translated CAAM statistics for 2010. If you would like me to address the other issues, please let me know. Fleetham (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue with calculating production data for Chinese companies is whether, and how (i.e. proportionate to shareholding or total), the production of joint ventures is included. I can fully accept that there are therefore multiple different potential rankings by size of production. However I do think that the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers data has validity. It is also good to try to maintain consistency across the project. A better approach may be to state in the lead something like 'Chery is *th or *th largest China-based automaker by 20** unit production, depending upon how the production of joint ventures is accounted for', and then dealing with this in more detail in the Sales section. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that Chery is an outlier among Chinese car makers on two counts; it currently lacks a JV with a famous name foreign automaker (soon to be rectified perhaps), and it has stolen Western IP, something that is typical of smaller, privately owned Chinese automakers--not the state-run Goliaths. Your statistic reflects the first, and I feel both are of equal relevance/weight. You've stated that you don't want to include the IP theft, but I have a hard time understanding your stance. Fleetham (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP claims seem to primarily concern a single model, the Chery QQ. In the context of the topic as a whole, and in view of the fact that the lead is currently just two lines long, I think that mention in the lead would be undue. If the lead were greatly expanded then I may support a brief mention.

For me the most interesting things about Chery are its export success, the relatively high quality of its products compared to other Chinese branded cars, and its extensive overseas production. The Qoros JV is also pretty novel as it is with a company which does not make cars and is aiming to build premium cars for western markets. Of course none of these features are currently in the lead. The lead generally needs a lot of development, but I don't think that the addition of a line on IP theft would at this point be a step forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. But I'm not sure how you arrived at the opinion that Chery cars are of a higher quality than others. And as for export success, it is remarkable that by their own count near-as-makes-no-difference 30% of units made were exported in 2010. I think that an updated lead should mention everything you stated except high quality because I don't know where that comes from as well as some note on the upcoming JV(s) with JLR and Subaru. My personal feeling is that Chery is a bit of a laggard, has had only one successful model (the QQ), that the Qoros thing is born out of desperation and the Chinese state's insistence on EVs more than good business sense, and that Chery doesn't have good future prospects. Clinching a JV deal would really brighten things up. Fleetham (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, if you'd like to write the expanded lead, I'll go about re-adding the unobjectionable bits of my last edit soon. Fleetham (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Chery Subaru JV

Just wondering why your recent edits to Chery have removed mention of the failed effort to establish a JV with Subaru. Care to explain? Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite having discussed this article above you simply went back to the article and made pretty much exactly the same edits again, including ones specifically referred to above. I therefore question the utility of discussing this article with you. What is the point if you then just return to article and make the changes again?

The specific point on the Subaru JV, I am happy to include in the main text although for me this is undue for the lead.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that we have the same problem with one another. Let's make an agreement and stick to it! Instead of making WP:BOLD edits, let's discuss prior to editing. I think that way we can both sign on to inclusion/deletion of content and not have a silly edit war. For example, issues I have with your most recent edits and would like to discuss comprise: the fact that you state Chery is a multinational company, that you removed the mention of IP theft allegations from the lead agreed to prior, and that you added that GM a joint venture partner of "Chery and SAIC". Fleetham (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, more complaints: can you please make an effort to make not a flurry of edits but a single one instead? Sorry for all the complaining, but I find this interaction frustrating. Fleetham (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You've also supported the statement that "Chery's main manufacturing location is in Anhui" with a source that simply states, "a factory in Anhui". I understand your dislike for vagueness, but please don't translate that into posting incorrect information. Fleetham (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it incorrect? If it's wrong, it should be removed, if it's right then it should be stated as fact. A citation can always be found. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On the specific points: happy for mention of Subaru in text, but not in lead; Chery is clearly multinational according to the Operations and Sales sections of the article; I am happy for a brief mention of IP issues once the lead is longer, it is still short for that however; the Chery and SAIC JV point was a mistake, now fixed.

We can discuss the article together before making changes, but I find that this slows things down massively, greatly increases the quantity of work, and often actually produces worse results. One person can make bold additions or changes, and then others can polish them or build on them. I guess the question is what do you have planned for the article? Personally I would like to see the lead further expanded and improved, more pictures added, a separate section for joint ventures created, the electric vehicles content brought together with other products and services, and the Motorsport section expanded and the text generally polished.

Multiple edits are better than a large number of changes made in a single edit as it is then possible to revert parts of the changes more easily. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

IDK what the definition of "multinational" is but the title appears self-serving, so I believe it fails WP:SELFPUB. I doubt that a company with no overseas production bases can be considered "multinational". (And Chery has none; those overseas factories are owned by others.) I'll go ahead and make changes, and see what you make of them, as you, understandably, don't want to discuss changes prior to editing. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Chery is investing half a billion dollars in Turkey on a new engine factory and assembly plant, its vehicles are produced in 17 countries and sold in many more. You say it doesn't own the overseas assmebly plants. Im not certain if this is true for every single one, but in any case it is very closely involved in those operations by necessity. They are producing Chery vehicles which are marketed as Cherys. Chery also operates marketing and distribution activities on a multinational basis. This is much more than a China based company just selling in China or exporting from China.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to see what, exactly, you object to in the following prior to posting it:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is awaitingstill under consideration, a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. If the joint venture comes to fruition, Chery and UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, the establishment of a R&D facility and a new brand name, and the sale of vehicles produced by the company. The proposed joint venture has yet to receive the go-ahead from the government, which has recently "been stringent in screening foreign automakers setting up production units". Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just about to eat but will respond this specific point in about 30 mins.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How's this? I'm not sure if you're stuck on too negative a POV or removal of details. This addresses the former, as I don't see much reason to mention the possibility of a new marque or an R&D site:

In 2012 Chery again sought to partner with a foreign automaker, something it had previously tried in 2007. While a proposed joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover is still under consideration as of March 2012, a tie-up with Subaru was canceled due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. If the Jaguar Land Rover deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China. Fleetham (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The current text regarding the JLR joint venture is neater. There is no reason to state more than once that the JLR JV is awaiting regulatory approval, and that type of editing also creates more unnecessary work once the venture is approved, particularly when it is woven into the text in that way. There is no need to repeat about prior JV discussions in 2007 when these are described just a few lines higher up in the section. The Subaru discussions can be placed in a separate sentence. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason to state more than once that it's pending approval. Why adding an introductory sentence "because the info's already been stated" is something I don't understand. I don't understand your core dislike about the paragraph, is it that it makes it seem as if the JV will not go through? Fleetham (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I just think that the present wording is better, for the reasons just stated. If this was a book and the 2007 discussions were a few pages earlier then yes referring to it again would make sense, however here it is just a few lines higher up. And yes there is no need to keep repeating about approval being pending. Once is enough. There is also need to keep repeating that Chery has had prior attempted JVs which, for various reasons, never got started. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a reason to remove cited material. See WP:OWNERSHIP. In regards to your most recent revert, I would like some clarification: 1) Do you think a company calling itself "multinational" passes WP:SELFPUB? Why? 2) Are you still agreeable to including a mention in the lead about IP theft? 3) Why did you re-include a statement that is not supported by its given citation? Again, say we should discuss prior to editing, as I don't see how that's "more work". It seems that agreeing to things first would be a better solution, don't you think? Fleetham (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep adding the reference to Subaru at the same time as making other contested changes, and weaving the Subaru reference unnecessarily into the text. Add some text about Subaru in a single edit without making other contested changed and it wont be reverted.

I don't care what Chery calls itself, my personal analysis is that, based upon the content in the article, 'multinational' is an accurate description of the company.

As I have said multiple times, in principle I have nothing against a small reference to IP issues in the lead, but not at present whilst the lead is still small.

What sort of changes do have in mind for the article? It would be helpful to know that in order to work out how best to work together on the article going forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's work things out before we post, and that way we'll end up with a page we're agreeable to.

Points to discuss:

Lead mention of IP theft

Will be added when lead is expanded - AGREED BUT A SMALL MENTION, NO MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE, AND TOWARDS THE END OF THE LEAD

Referring to the company as "multinational"

I think it fails WP:SELFPUB, you think it's an "accurate description" - MERELY A SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE

Wikipedia says a "multinational corporation" is "a corporation enterprise that manages production or delivers services in more than one country." Investopedia says it's, "A corporation that has its facilities and other assets in at least one country other than its home country." As Chery does not have facilities or assets outside of China (although many small factories owned by others produce its products from knock-down kits), I believe Chery fails these definitions. Do you have an issue with the definitions or does Chery, in fact, have overseas assets I'm unaware of?

Recent JV activity

Is this an acceptable paragraph?

At the start of the decade, Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.

Currently, the company is in the midst of negotiating a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover. If this deal receives the go-ahead from the government, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker will invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China. Fleetham (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer

"In 20**, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities. In March 2012, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which will include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility, the creation of a new automobile marque, and sales of vehicles produced by the company. The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval."

Note that Chery and JLR have reached agreement, the issue at this point is regulatory approval. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have with that is that it makes it appear as if the JLR JV is going ahead, while I'm of the opinion it's no sure thing. Can you address my concern? Fleetham (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the wording 'The joint venture is awaiting regulatory approval.'. This seems more than adequate to me, to emphasise it any more strongly would be to suggest that approval is unlikely to be granted. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in the current environment, with a slowing economy that makes the Chinese government wary of overcapacity, a recent failure to gain approval for a outwardly similar JV, more than a footnote is warranted. Several news articles play up the fact that regulatory hurdles might kill the project: article, WSJ article. This recent Xinhua article quotes a JLR exec. saying the JV is on track, however. Why not make the regulatory hurdle bit into an entire sentence that details why it's more likely to be a more of a stumbling block than you might think? Fleetham (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Chery and JLR have agreed between themselves, they are corporate entities, we do not need to state who ultimately controls the companies in this context. JLR and Chery have agreed to set up a JV. Period. For the JV to begin activities, the permission of the Chinese authorities will be required and that is currently pending. We can place a little more emphasis on the point that the permission of the Chinese authorities is required for the JV to begin activities if you wish.

Your links above, the first is dead and the second requires a subscription. Speculation on whether the JV will gain approval is in any case crystal balling which is deprecated in WP. Just becase other proposed Chery JVs did not gain permission does not mean that this one will not. It would also be something of a snub to both the UK and India were it refused. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because you can't view the links doesn't make what they say less valid. I just can't understand why it's so difficult to get you to see the validity of what I have to say. Fleetham (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the first link: Reuters article. Fleetham (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

WP has its own approach and future speculation is generally deprecated. General comments on the approvals process also belong somewhere like the Automotive industry in the People's Republic of China article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly why it's important to state that this plan may not see fruition. To do otherwise would contravene WP rules, no? Fleetham (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It already states that, by saying that approval is pending. Commentary on the likelihood of approval being granted is what you appear to be seeking. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is why it's important to ensure the prose doesn't misinform the reader as to the likelihood that it will be approved. I feel that the wording "Chery and JLG agree to JV" makes it appear as if it's their decision, not the Chinese state's. What about "have proposed", "have plans to establish", or "may enter into" a JV? Fleetham (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They have agreed. That is a plain fact. Why not add greater emphasis by changing the following sentence to 'In order for the joint venture to be formally established and begin operations the approval of the Chinese authorities is required; as of July 2012 this is pending.'Rangoon11 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Something like that would be good, but I still take issue with the "agreed" bit. When I first read that, not knowing what I do now, I imagined that it meant the JV was a go. If you insist on that word I would prefer something along the lines of "While Chery and JLR have agreed to this JV, the Chinese government has not." I just want to ensure that the take away is that the JV is very much a future possibility, not a certainty, and when I read what you added, I imagined the latter. Fleetham (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But that is what is stated in my proposed text. To state "the Chinese government has not" is to suggest that permission has been refused. It hasn't been, and whether it will be or not is pure speculation and inappropriate for WP. There has been no indication as regards this specific JV that permission is likely to be refused, it is pure supposition based on indirect factors. Personally I would be amazed if permission were refused, although I do recognise the wider context. However the point is, to go beyond stating that permission is required and is currently pending is to enter into the realms of pure speculation.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not leave the entire thing out until a decision have been reached? I think the speculation argument dictates either that or balanced content. I just would like it to be clear that, while the two companies involved have agreed, that does not mean the thing will go forward. Fleetham (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is purely factual, highly significant and relevant and can be cited using high quality sources. I am struggling to understand your issue with the formulation which I have suggested above, and which would make even clearer that permission is required before the JV will commence. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your solution is probably fine. It's just that literally half of the Reuters article, and the WSJ one as well (which I can't access now and the version I can get through a database is different), was dedicated to the fact that regulatory hurdles are higher now than ever before.

Anyway, how's this? I'm not sure where the Subaru sentence should go--one-sentence paragraphs are fine by me, but I don't know how you feel about them:

During 2011 Chery sought a tie-up with Subaru, but this was canceled in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval.

As of July 2012, Chery is on track to consummate a joint venture with Jaguar Land Rover.(that Xinhua citation with the JLR exec quote) Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker plan to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the project, which will manufacture Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines in China, but the government must first sign off on the deal.

After having taken a look at WP:FUTURE, my interpretation is that until this thing is finished one way or another, it shouldn't be included as that policy states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". I think I've provided evidence that speaks to the fact that this latter criterion is something this JV fails. Fleetham (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The agreement has happened, it is a fact and has been reported on. The only element of speculation concerns whether approval will be given. However the agreement itself is highly notable for inclusion and has received wide coverage in third-party sources.

This text is in my view more precise, the dates are important:

"In 2011, Chery and the Japanese automaker Subaru agreed to form a joint venture, the primary activity of which would have been the production of Subaru-branded vehicles in China. The proposed venture was abandoned in 2012 due to difficulty in obtaining regulatory approval from Chinese authorities.[2] In March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture the activities of which are intended to include the manufacture of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles and engines, the establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque.[3][4] The joint venture must receive approval from Chinese regulators before proceeding, which as of July 2012 is pending." Rangoon11 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's the best argument, but I think that mentioning an event that did occur which is wholly part of and subsidiary to an event that has yet to occur can still be considered to fall afoul of WP:FUTURE. And maybe you should read rules before quoting them; my referenced speculation about the likelihood is totally fine per WP:FUTURE, which states, "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." While your above suggested paragraph makes it clear that the JV has yet to happen, which goes some way to placating my concerns, I'd still be happier without the word "agree". In this context "agree" really means "want" not "intend" because the two don't intend to go ahead without approval. Hopefully you can be sympathetic in regards to that that distinction. What about the following? Controversial words in bold

In 2011 Chery and Subaru sought to form a joint venture company in China, but the Japanese car maker abandoned the plan in 2012 due to difficulty obtaining regulatory approval. Chery is currently exploring a tie-up with Jaguar Land Rover. As of March 2012, Chery and the British luxury automaker want to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in the China-based project, which will include the manufacture of Jaguar Land Rover vehicles in China. The joint venture must receive the go-ahead from Chinese regulators before proceeding and, according to Jaguar Land Rover, is on track for approval as of July 2012. A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however. The establishment of a research and development facility and the creation of a new automobile marque, two other parts of the planned project, were stipulated by the Chinese government. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, your The Guardian citation is a deadlink. Fleetham (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this conversation would best have belonged on the Chery talkpage, but no matter. I definitely do not think that this sentence is needed: "A sentence expressing the fact that approval may not be given, however" Pending means pending, no need to qualify it further.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree. Why in (insert deity)'s name is a discussion regarding consensus in an article being held on a user talkpage ... it takes more than 2 to determine consensus. Nothing on this page can be considered as valid consensus for anything in the article ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm quite happy for the above to be copied over to the article talk page. Sometimes what one thought might be a brief exchange of opinions can quickly grow however. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fleetham - are you happy for the above thread to be copied over to the article talk page, and for the discussion to then continue there?Rangoon11 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have had multiple bad interactions with Mr. Choppers and don't care to continue this or any discussion with him. Copy this to the article's talk if you want, but count me out of any discussion with Mr. Choppers. Fleetham (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS, you have to interact with anyone who wishes to take part in such a discussion on the article talkpage, period. Now it appears that having this side discussion here was an attempt to circumvent the consensus process ... is "I can't do consensus" really the message you're trying to send? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions. I don't want to take part in a discussion with a person because of WP:no personal attacks. And I am engaged in a discussion on a talk page. How do these two events become "an attempt to circumvent the consensus process"? Anyway, I'm quite adamant that I will have no further interaction with Mr. Choppers, so if that means I can't take part in a discussion to reach consensus, so be it. You can easily reach a consensus without me. Fleetham (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Pointless, non-improving stylistic changes

Many of Fleetham's changes to this article are purely stylistic, and are non-improving. They seem to be motivated purely by a desire to put text into their preferred style of writing. Sadly it is neither a good style, nor one which is commonly used in WP.

For example, in their latest round of edits the following changes were made:

• From: "Chery was founded in 1997 as a state-owned enterprise and began automobile production in 1999"
• To: "Founded in 1997 as a state-owned enterprise, Chery began automobile production in 1999"

• From: "Chery became the 7th most-productive Chinese vehicle manufacturer in 2010" (at the start of a new paragraph)
• To: "The company became the 7th most-productive Chinese vehicle manufacturer in 2010"Rangoon11 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of relevant information

Fleetham persists in trying to remove information from the article which is relevant and useful to readers. For example, in their latest round of edits, the following facts were removed. Why?

"In October 2009 Chery announced plans for an assembly plant in Turkey to be built in cooperation with the Turkish automaker Mermerler Otomotiv at a cost of $500 million"

changed to

"In October 2009 plans for an assembly plant in Turkey to be built in cooperation with a Turkish company were announced"

"In March 2012, Chery and the UK-based luxury automaker Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture "

changed to

"In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to invest an initial US$2.78 billion in a new China-based joint venture "Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mention of $500 million but simply moved it to another sentence that contrasts the total planned expenditure with Chery's initial expenditure of $120 million. I'm unsure if the other things are really important enough to comment on but am happy to do so if asked. Fleetham (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The points I was referring to are 1. that JLR is a UK-based luxury automaker and 2. that the Turkish company is an automaker called Mermerler Otomotiv. For me both details are useful to readers. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

In my view the lead requires both expansion and improvement. However I do not agree with the changes which Fleetham is making to the lead, which are, in my view, both low quality and place too much emphasis on impressionistic opinions rather than on facts.

I feel that regarding the lead the best way forward would be to hammer out a new version on this Talk page. I am happy to come up with a first draft, or for others to, or for multiple first drafts to be put forward. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that everything in the lead is cited with reliable sources, and I really struggle to understand your constant deletions of my additions. Saying things like "no improvement" when removing cited content that adds information not found elsewhere in the page does little to further this. I'd be more interested in "hammering out a new lead" if you were able to better explain why the one I worked on is "low quality". Please forgive me for saying so, but the impression I've gathered over the past few days is that you'd rather delete any material I add then listen to me or improve the page.

If you would, please, point out what is wrong with or need improvement in, this: A state-owned enterprise, Chery was founded in 1997 and began automobile production in 1999. It has been China's largest passenger car exporter since 2003[2] and in 2011 exported around 25% of its total production. Its focus on foreign markets may be due to the fact that the company has lacked a joint venture with a multinational automaker.[3] Although Chery may soon consummate a tie-up with Jaguar Land Rover, the only other independent state-owned carmaker is JAC Motors. In fact, because joint venture manufacturing is such a large proportion of vehicle production in China, Chery would place as the fourth-largest Chinese automaker in 2010 if joint venture production was stripped from domestic rivals.[4] It was named in 2009 "the leading independent domestic vehicle manufacturer in sales" by the US Congressional Research Office,[5] and consultancy Booz & Company has stated that the company "has developed... their own platforms, transmissions, and engines."[6] Some may argue that stolen IP has also made its way into Chery products; it has the distinction of being the only state-owned car maker to be accused of such theft. Fleetham (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I appreciate criticism I can understand but not being told my work is simply poor. "Pointers, not insults" please. Fleetham (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My frankness today has been borne of frustration and if the comments have been taken as insults then I apologise as that was not the intention. I should add that 1. I welcome your commitment to the area of Chinese companies, which is a woefully neglected one in WP, and 2. much of the factual content which you have added and continue to add is valuable.

My issues are principally to do with your writing style, your inflexibility and your tendency to place emphasis on opinion (albeit often cited) over fact.

What I would like to see for this lead is something like is now in place at BP or HSBC - a decent sized and balanced lead of four paras, each of around four to five lines in length. Each with a fairly focused mission. A lead which is a proper introduction to the whole of the topic and which covers company history, products, operations and key controversies (the latter brief), and places the company in the context of the industry both globally and in China. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I could go a long ways towards being more ready to step down from a position. In regards to the lead, I feel the best way to move forward is to agree on what those 4 or 5 paragraphs should focus on.

I feel that the "important topics of Chery" are things like export success, a long period of time without a foreign partner, and the fact that it is not in the same class as SAIC, FAW, BAIC, or Chana if only looking at production capacity. Another distinction may be that while many major state-owned automakers made commercial vehicles and buses before branching out into passenger cars, Chery developed later and has never produced trucks and buses (unless I am wrong--I do think they make some type of commercial vehicles, medium sized vans maybe?). The success of the QQ (or QQ3, which I believe is the original) also deserves mention. I recently ran across a recent article about it garnering a "famous Chinese brand" award. How many has it sold, and is it something like the 2nd most popular car to ever go on sale in China? And perhaps it should be made explicit that Chery products are not, unlike many if not most passenger cars sold in China, simply Chinese-made versions of "multinational models". Fleetham (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I think the best way to move forward is to construct an outline of the lead, and then we can stick bits in the appropriate places. Fleetham (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, in defense of adding cited opinion to the lead, the analysis that lack of a cooperative joint venture with a multinational and export focus go hand-in-hand is both strongly stated in the source and has much explanatory power. The following quotes are from The Rise of China's Auto Industry and Its Impact on the U.S.... by the US Congressional Research Service:

"The international automobile manufacturers are unlikely to promote Chinese exports that compete with their own products in other markets. As a consequence, the Chinese companies that have expressed a strong interest in exporting cars have not had strong ties to foreign car producers..." (summary)

"Many independent domestic automotive manufacturers have emerged and have ambitions to make cars for developed countries." (pp. 2)

"Moreover, some assert, cooperation through joint ventures inherently restrains the Chinese partner from independently developing an export market for vehicles...." (pp. 13)

Fleetham (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's some info on the QQ; do you think it's popular enough to warrent a lead mention? It was the company's "most popular product" in 2005 (Eisenstein, P. (2005). Chery-picking from china. Professional Engineering, 18(4), 38-38.), and "was one of the hottest sellers in the domestic car market last year [2005] with sales rising 130 per cent to 110,000 units." (Dyer, G. (2006, Mar 21). China's chery prepares to make a splash group's micro-car has changed the chinese urban landscape and is now headed for the west. geoff dyer assesses its prospects. Financial Times, pp. 24-24.)

Chery itself referred to the car in 2011 as "a legend in the Chinese history of automobile... a mini model with the highest cumulative sales in China (800,000 in seven years)" ... and states that it has sold 900,000 units at home and abroad. 900K would mean its production numbers are about 30% those of what I assume is the most sold Chinese car, the VW Santana, which comes in at 3,213,710 units since 1983. Production per year is about the same at 110.8K for the Santana and 112.5 for the QQ. Fleetham (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The QQ seems no longer popular, however. CAAM stats show that while it ranked in the top ten in of 2007 & 2008 and Q1 of 2009, this was neither the case in Q1 of 2010 nor December of 2011. Fleetham (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that we are broadly on the same page. I support a mention of the QQ in the lead, of Chery's relative export strength, of its being unusual in not having had a joint venture with a major western car maker for most of its history.

For me however the lead should be primarily fact driven, with little comment or analysis. There will no doubt be many reasons for Chery's export focus and success. One may well be its lack of a major JV, but others could be simply mangement quality, luck, strategic positioning for other reasons etc. Making a bold analytical claim in the lead where there is no room to provide further context or detail and scope for debate exists is something which in this case I would find undue.

I will aim to produce a draft lead during the course of today and post it here for discussion. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If not in the lead, it should be included in the page. I think it's a good transition from "exporting" to "lack of foreign JV" or vice versa, but if you object to a lead mention then don't include it. It does explain export focus, and as a company in a crowded market it's natural that you would want to expand production in a way that doesn't mean reducing average revenue per unit. If setting up sales outlets overseas is cheaper than doing so in China, or differentiating your product lines so they don't compete, why wouldn't you export? But the only ones that do don't have links to foreign firms. Fleetham (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a bare-bones draft of an expanded lead. This should be seen as a first draft, not as a proposal for the final version:

Chery is a multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wuhu, Anhui, China. It was founded in 1997 and is a state-owned corporation. It is the seventh-largest China-based automaker measurered by 2011 output, with a production of around 600,000 units in that year.

Chery began the production of automobiles in 1999 and the export of its vehicles from China in 2001. It has been China's largest passenger car exporter since 2003 and in 2011 exported around 25% of its total production. Chery has a 50:50 joint venture with Israel Corporation, Qoros, which was formed in 2007 and is developing a range of premium vehicles for sale worldwide. In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to form a new China-based joint venture; as of July 2012 the venture is awaiting regulatory approval from the Chinese government.

Chery sell its vehicles under four brand names: Chery, Karry, Rely and Riich. Its products are primarily passenger cars, minivans, and SUVs. Chery's largest selling model has been the Chery QQ city car. Chery has several vehicle assembly and component manufacturing facilities in the mainland of China. Chery vehicles are assembled in around 15 other countries, primarily in factories not owned by Chery utilising either complete or semi-complete knock-down kits. Chery has two R&D centers in China and invests around 7% of its total revenues in product development.

Chery is unusual among large Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major western automaker for the past decade. The company has received criticism for having infringed the intellectual property rights of both General Motors and Toyota.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The only issues I have with that are naming it a multinational. A few joint venture plants that produce a minuscule amount of total production does not a multinational make. Perhaps saying that the company refers to itself as a multinational? Also, there are too many instances of the word "Chery", but that's easily fixed. Fleetham (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an edit to remove all the Cherys.

Chery is a multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wuhu, Anhui, China. Founded in 1997, this state-owned corporation was in 2011 the seventh-largest China-based automaker measurered by output, and had a production capacity of around 600,000 units in that year. Beginning automobile production in 1999 and export from China in 2001, Chery has long been China's largest passenger car exporter and in 2011 around 25% of its total production was sold overseas.

Chery sells its vehicles under four brand names: Chery, Karry, Rely and Riich. Its products are primarily passenger cars, minivans, and SUVs. The largest selling model has been the Chery QQ city car. The company has several vehicle assembly and component manufacturing facilities in mainland China, but Chery vehicles are also assembled in around 15 other countries, primarily in factories not owned by Chery utilising knock-down kits. The company has two R&D centers in China.

Chery is unusual among large Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major Western automaker for the past decade. Most passenger cars produced in China are foreign models make by joint venture companies, and Chery, which only ranked 7th among domestic rivals in 2011, is the largest passenger car maker operating without assistance from a foreign partner. This is why Chery is sometimes referred to as "China's largest independent automaker". This situation may soon change, however. In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to form a new China-based joint venture; as of July 2012 the venture is awaiting regulatory approval from the Chinese government. The company already has 50:50 joint venture with Israel Corporation, Qoros, which was formed in 2007 and is developing a range of electric vehicles for sale worldwide.

The company has received criticism for having infringed the intellectual property rights of both General Motors and Toyota.

Notes: words I added to changed are in bold. Also, should "western" be capitalised? And I don't like the last one-paragraph sentence, but where should it be tacked on? It doesn't seem to fit in with any of the paragraphs. The explanation of Chery being the largest independent automaker also seems a bit awkward. Fleetham (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In defense of "no multinational":

I don't think Chery qualifies for the title. This Iowa State page from an Econ 300-lvl class, while being kind of messy, lays out several criteria for being a multinational, and Chery may pass, however. It meets the 25% foreign sales criterion, "engages in foreign production through its affiliates located in several countries", and certainly has met the requirements for stages one and two of the "Three Stages of Evolution".

On the other hand, no independent source names Chery a multinational, and many use the word in opposition to Chery. The last sentence of this Financial Times article (March 21, 2012, "Jaguar Land Rover in tie-up with Chery" By John Reed) reads, "Chery is an unproven company when it comes to dealing with multinationals,” said Bill Russo, a former Chrysler executive who runs Synergistics, an auto consultancy." Moreover, this gasgoo.com article states in regards to the JLR JV that "the new JV will... help Chery learn about management from a multinational enterprise..." And this NY Times article states, "Less affluent buyers from Santiago to Baghdad are starting to buy cheap Chinese cars as alternatives to... models sold by multinationals."

It appears that when it comes to carmakers, there is a consensus about what is a multinational (Western famous name companies like Fiat, VW, and Ford) and what isn't, and Chery doesn't qualify. Fleetham (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another: "At the Baghdad Auto Show opened, Chery showed up with many star models. This year's exhibition attracted more than 100 exhibitors, including multinational auto brands such as Benz, BMW, Peugeot, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai." (IRAQ: Chery participates in baghdad auto show. (2011, Nov 11). Just - Auto Global News) Fleetham (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to lose the word "multinational" in this case. Although I personally feel it to be correct, in view of a number of overseas production facilities and investments, and sales and distribution activities in many countries, I am prepared to compromise to get a new lead up and running.

Here is a revised proposed draft which removes the word 'multinational" and makes a few other tweaks based on comments received. Note that I have not included a number of your changes which were stylistic and in my view non-improving. Please make any comments separate and below the draft text as I am otherwise forced to check the article history to see changes.

Chery is an automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wuhu, Anhui, China. It was founded in 1997 and is a state-owned corporation. It is the seventh-largest China-based automaker measurered by 2011 output, with a production of around 600,000 units in that year. Its products are primarily passenger cars, minivans, and SUVs and it sells its vehicles under four brand names: Chery, Karry, Rely and Riich.

Chery began the production of automobiles in 1999 and the export of its vehicles from China in 2001. It has been China's largest passenger car exporter since 2003 and in 2011 exported around 25% of its total production. It operates a 50:50 joint venture with Israel Corporation, Qoros, which was formed in 2007 and is developing a range of electric vehicles for sale worldwide. In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to form a new China-based joint venture; as of July 2012 the venture is awaiting regulatory approval from the Chinese government.

Chery has several vehicle assembly and component manufacturing facilities in the mainland of China. Its vehicles are assembled in around 15 other countries, primarily in factories not owned by Chery which utilise either complete or semi-complete knock-down kits. Chery has two R&D centers in China and invests around 7% of its total revenues in product development. Its largest selling model to date has been the Chery QQ city car.

Chery is unusual among large Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major western automaker for the past decade. The company has received criticism for having infringed the intellectual property rights of both General Motors and Toyota.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Do you mind if I do a stylistic re-write to remove too many "Cherys"? At least from the beginning of some paragraphs? Fleetham (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, are we're just assuming that the QQ is its best selling model. I haven't read that anywhere although it's likely true. Fleetham (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a cite which just about gets there for the QQ: [1]. We could perhaps change the text to match the cite by saying "Chery's growth has been driven by the best-selling Chery QQ city car".

I don't want to lose any 'Cherys' from the start of paragraphs as I don't think it reads properly to start a paragraph with 'It' or 'The company'. However I have already removed a few from the text, and the below draft removes a couple more:

Chery is an automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wuhu, Anhui, China. It was founded in 1997 and is a state-owned corporation. It is the seventh-largest China-based automaker measurered by 2011 output, with a production of around 600,000 units in that year. Its products are primarily passenger cars, minivans, and SUVs and it sells its vehicles under four brand names: Chery, Karry, Rely and Riich.

Chery began the production of automobiles in 1999 and the export of its vehicles from China in 2001. It has been China's largest passenger car exporter since 2003 and in 2011 exported around 25% of its total production. It operates a 50:50 joint venture with Israel Corporation, Qoros, which was formed in 2007 and is developing a range of electric vehicles for sale worldwide. In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to form a new China-based joint venture; as of July 2012 it is awaiting regulatory approval from the Chinese government.

Chery has several vehicle assembly and component manufacturing facilities in the mainland of China. Its vehicles are assembled in around 15 other countries, primarily in factories not owned by the company which utilise either complete or semi-complete knock-down kits. It has two R&D centers in China and invests around 7% of its total revenues in product development. Its largest selling model to date has been the Chery QQ city car.

Chery is unusual among large Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major western automaker for the past decade. The company has received criticism for having infringed the intellectual property rights of both General Motors and Toyota.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead is pretty much ready to be posted, and the following details can be addressed later if needed. Instead of Chery, Chery, Chery, how do you feel about paragraphs with leading sentences that begin with a dependent clause or have a subject other than the company, such as "Automobile production began in 1999, and Chery first exported its vehicles in 2001" or "While most manufacturing is done at facilities in Mainland China, Chery vehicles are also assembled in around 15 other countries..."? And I'll look for something that helps place the QQ as a popular model or best seller... not sure I'll find it though. Also, is the only Toyota IPR complaint that a Chery model resembles a Toyota one? Because if so I don't think it should be in the lead. And is Chery really a "large Chinese automaker"? There are five Chinese vehicle makers that have production over 1 million units and account for 82% of all top ten output nat'l output. (See 2011 CAAM production wrap-up Chery has about half the production of the fifth largest of these. Fleetham (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be so nit-picky. The only really important thing to me is the style. Repetition is bad style! Fleetham (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found a lot of info on the QQ, but nothing that unequivocally states it's Chery "most sold" car. The QQ is "Chery's cheapest model" and its "best-selling export model"; was a hot seller in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (when it made up 60% of all Chery cars sold); etc. etc.

In the absence of any better find, I move that the lead mentions that Chery is "well known for" the QQ model, citing this article: Geoff Dyer, in Shanghai. "FT.Com Site : China's Carmakers make Domestic Inroads." FT.Com (Mar 01, 2006). The following quote from the above talks about the building of the QQ brand:

"Yet in the case of the QQ, industry observers say there is more to its success than just a low price-tag. Unlike most other Chinese brands, whose marketing involves glitzy gimmicks that attract first- time buyers, Chery has managed to create a significant amount of buzz around the model, especially among young people.

The brand itself is also the name of an instant messaging service that is popular among young Chinese and the company has used the internet including collaborations with the Sina.com portal to reach new consumers. The bright colours have also helped establish an image.

"More than any other Chinese model, the QQ has managed to establish an identity for itself," says Chris Reitermann, managing director of the Beijing office of OgilvyOne, the advertising agency."

Another source from the same author states, "Chery is best known for its QQ mini-car" (Geoff Dyer, in Shanghai. "FT.Com Site : Proton in Talks with Chery Over Manufacturing." FT.Com (Mar 30, 2006)) Fleetham (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The following article repeats the "Chery is best known for..." line: Shirouzu, Norihiko and Alex P. Kellogg. "Corporate News: Chrysler, Chery End Joint Project." Wall Street Journal, Dec 10, 2008. Fleetham (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy to change the text for the QQ as suggested. In my view Chery is a "large" Chinese automaker in view of the fact that there are around of them. How else would you propose to reword that sentence?

I don't like sentences which begin with a dependent clause, particularly at the start of paragraphs.

Here is a revised draft:

Chery is an automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wuhu, Anhui, China. It was founded in 1997 and is a state-owned corporation. The seventh-largest China-based automaker measured by 2011 output, it produced around 600,000 units in that year. FINE Its I WANT TO KEEP THIS 'IT'S', FEEL IT IS NECESSARY FOR GRAMMAR AND FLOW Products are primarily passenger cars, minivans, and SUVs and it sells its vehicles under four brand names: Chery, Karry, Rely and Riich.

Chery began the production of automobiles in 1999 and the export of vehicles from China in 2001. (Could also read "Chery began the sale and export of vehicles in 2001) READS BETTER AS IS AND START OF PRODUCTION IS SIGNIFICANT It has been China's largest passenger car exporter since 2003 and in 2011 (Needs to be double-checked/cited... I believe I calculated 2010 export ratio) CITE HERE: [2] exported around 25% of its total production. It operates a 50:50 joint venture with Israel Corporation, Qoros, which was formed in 2007 and is developing a range of electric vehicles for sale worldwide. In March 2012, Chery and Jaguar Land Rover agreed to form a new China-based joint venture; as of July 2012 it is awaiting regulatory approval from the Chinese government.

Chery has several vehicle assembly and component manufacturing facilities in the FINE mainland of FINE China. Its vehicles are assembled in around 15 other countries as well, NOT NEEDED primarily in factories not owned by the company which that NO, "WHICH" IS CORRECT utilise either complete or semi-complete knock-down kits made in China. It has two R&D centers in China and invests around 7% of its total revenues in product development. Chery's best-known model is the Chery QQ city car.

Chery is unusual among large FINE Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major western automaker for the past decade. The company has received criticism for having infringed the intellectual property rights of General Motors.

Rangoon11 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I marked up the above. I would strike "large" from "Chinese automaker". From about 30 I know of, eleven don't have a JV (twelve if you count BYD, which is in the process of getting one with Mercedes). If you discount subsidiaries, that's 6/15 that don't have a JV. There may well be many more Chinese automakers I'm unaware of, but big or small it seems foreign cooperation is common. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim as stated "unique for a decade of no JV" could be better reflected in the 11/30 figure than the 6/15, as many subsidiaries were once independent companies (those w/o a JV are nice takeover targets). Either way, about 0.4 Chinese automaker don't have a JV. Fleetham (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments shown in draft in BLOCK CAPS. I think we are almost there!Rangoon11 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can sympathize with your dislike of sentences beginning with a dependent clause. Where does that come from? Anyway, I think it's "good to go" just needs a few citations. And the GM IP thing needs to be reworded because no citation supports it--GM claims theft and an out-of-court agreement was reached.

The following sentences need citations as not cited in text: " Chery's best-known model is the Chery QQ city car", "it exported around 25% of its total production",

No citation will support "Chinese automakers in not having had a joint venture with a major western automaker for the past decade", "Its vehicles are assembled from knock down kits in around 15 other countries" but that's okay.

Did I miss any? I think the statement that "Chery is best-known for the QQ" also works in reverse, so the following should cite the first sentence in need of a citation above: Geoff Dyer, in Shanghai. "FT.Com Site : Proton in Talks with Chery Over Manufacturing." FT.Com (Mar 30, 2006)

I'll work on the citation for the exports unless you want to. Fleetham (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like sentences beginning with dependent clauses, I just find them clumsy.

The GM issue - I would be happy to leave the whole sentence out of the lead to be honest. I am open to that sentence being reformulated also.

I just checked and Qoros is not exclusively or even primarily going to be starting with electric cars so that sentence needs to change to just 'premium cars'.

The 25% figure I would be willing to lose if it can't easily be cited. Of course we don't need a specific cite provided we have cites for each of production and export numbers.

I don't think "Its vehicles are assembled from knock down kits in around 15 other countries" needs a specific cite as it is merely a summary of text in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a source for the 25% export thing. While Global Times may not be the most reputable source (I read somewhere it was a "tabloid"), Xinhua and the province of Anhui both reported Chery expected high export number in 2011. Fleetham (talk)

I put up the lead, but the page currently lacks mention of the fact that Chery produces a sizable number of the Chinese passenger cars that aren't made in joint ventures. I believe you added a cite that showed Chery was the 4th largest Chinese vehicle manufacturer if you discounted JV production from its domestic competitors. Moreover, a close reading of page 10 in The Rise of China’s Auto Industry and Its Impact on the U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry seems to give support to the claim, which I've read in several press releases put out by Chery and its affiliates, that the company is China's largest independent automaker. (This may seem to clash with the OICA output report that puts Chery 4th, but both claims could be true: it would mean that commercial vehicle production at the top 3 were the reason Chery was 4th and not 1st.)

As the page currently lacks any info. about the above, I just wanted to endorse mentioning it on the page. It doesn't seem a natural fit with any of the current sections, so do you feel it warrants a lead mention or would it be best to make a new sub-section for it (perhaps also including that, unlike others, Chery production is almost exclusively passenger vehicles)? Fleetham (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish investment

I'm wondering how to deal with the $500 million investment in Turkey, as sources are unclear as to whether this is the price tag for the project or Chery's contribution. For example, this Gasgoo article states that it is both. The headline proclaims that Chery will invest $500 million, but later states that "total investment in the project is estimated at about $500 million." This Turkish newspaper article says Chery will be footing the entire $500 million bill, as does this article. It seems that whatever the cost, "in the first stage Chery would invest [only $120 million"]. I'm inclined to believe that the total investment by both parties is planned to reach $500 million per the Gasgoo article, as they're more likely to have contacted Chery being a source that covers the Chinese car industry not "news of the nation of Turkey". I've also read a number of articles on the topic and none state the amount the Turkish project partner will stump up.

It's important to be able to make this distinction between total investment and Chery's investment because it's one thing to say, "Chery plans to invest $500 million in Turkey, but will only provide about 1/5th of that initially" and another to state, "Chery's initial contribution to the $500 million project will be $120 million." Fleetham (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the distinction is important. It seems to be the case that the total cost of construction will be $500 million. For me that should definitely be included as it helps readers to assess the overall scale of the project. Of course if details of both Chery's share of the investment cost, and the manner in which the investment will be phased, can be cited then those details should be added. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say anything to downplay the project's importance would be good to add. Headlines say things like "$500 million for 100,000 units/year factory!" but dig a little deeper and you'll find out those numbers refer to plans that may come to fruition in 2017 and nothing newsworthy has occurred in the 2.5 years since the project has been announced. This reminds me of a recent Great Wall knock-down factory built in Bulgaria: touted as a 50,000 unit factory, when completed it had a 2K/year production capacity. (Of course, it will be able to make 50,000 cars "sometime later") Fleetham (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is harder to find reliable sources which give ongoing commentary on the status of projects under construction. There is generally significant media coverage of the initial announcement, and then perhaps of the opening, but in between very little.

I do think that the plans for the project are significant and relevant however, and the description of the planned phased expansion in capacity is already in the text. If reliable sources can be found which also descibe the actual current status of the project then I would fully support inclusion. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I remember reading was something about building it in a swamp. Or not doing so because it would add to the cost. I'm not sure why in 2012 the same Turkish news outlets reported exactly the same thing they did in 2009; you think that such an article would include some sort of update. Fleetham (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it sank into the swap :).Rangoon11 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

British English

Whether by design or happenstance this article appears to be generally in British English. I would like to formalise this through the addition of a British English tag on this page unless there are objections from the other regular editors.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry about the content(chery brand of cars,trucks and buses).

please,i will like to find out if you have given yuor franchise to any company in nigeria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.187.98 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The concept Car, can it drive?

The Chery Ant concept car

To me it looks, as if this car can not drive.

• How should the front wheels be driven?
• Can the front wheels be steered? It looks, as if the wheels have just one millimeter space and no space to move in another direction than straight ahead.
• I imagined, how I could step in. No success!

--Hans Eo (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820031815/http://www.caam.org.cn:80/zhengche/20120120/0905067439.html to http://www.caam.org.cn/zhengche/20120120/0905067439.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714185032/http://www.nitrobahn.com/news/2009-chinese-auto-sales-shanghai-volkswagen-leads-gm-trails-right-behind/ to http://www.nitrobahn.com/news/2009-chinese-auto-sales-shanghai-volkswagen-leads-gm-trails-right-behind/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120820031815/http://www.caam.org.cn:80/zhengche/20120120/0905067439.html to http://www.caam.org.cn/zhengche/20120120/0905067439.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115030711/http://caam.org.cn/zhengche/20130114/0905085491.html to http://www.caam.org.cn/zhengche/20130114/0905085491.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708040150/http://conceptcars.autoblog.com/2005/05/04/chery-m14-wins-best-new-car-in-show/ to http://conceptcars.autoblog.com/2005/05/04/chery-m14-wins-best-new-car-in-show/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024181225/http://chery.net.ua/index.html to http://chery.net.ua/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204043318/http://www.chery.com.mk/?strana=19 to http://www.chery.com.mk/?strana=19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024003201/http://www.chery.com.tr/satisnoktalari to http://www.chery.com.tr/satisnoktalari

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Models ?? Parts??

I am very interested in the Chinese way of production.

The models shown in this article don't agree with what I see.

The website below seems to be a Chery produced list of parts. http://cherylist.com/chery-automobile.aspx

The models shown does not agree very well with the models in this article.

Comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Ismore (talk • contribs) 13:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 奇瑞汽車 北京モーターショー2012.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

نمایندگی چری خدمات درست نمی‌دهد چند هفته است که که

عدم رضایت از خدمات نمایندگی چری در تهران لطفا پیگیری کنید مشتری را سردرگم می کنند. پول می گيرند در حالی که موظف به خدمات رایگان هستند من راضی نیستم. لطفا با من تماس بگیرید ممنون م 5.211.35.239 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

يُرجى عدم المساهمة باللغة العربية في هذه النسخة من ويكيبيديا، يُمكنك المساهمة باللغة العربية في النسخة العربية من ويكيبيديا.

Please do not contribute text in Arabic to the English Wikipedia. Your contributions are more than welcome at the Arabic Wikipedia. 78.174.182.186 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-Delivery of Vehicles and Numerous Assembly Issues by Chery's Representative in Iran

Non-Delivery, Assembly Issues, Poor Customer Service, and After-Sales Problems by Modiran Khodro, Chery's Representative in Iran 45.93.171.242 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Complaint Letter Regarding Issues with Modiran Khodro, Chery's Representative in Iran

Complaint Letter Regarding Issues with Modiran Khodro, Chery's Representative in Iran

https://www.karzar.net/115112 45.93.171.242 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)