Template:Did you know nominations/1950s' American automobile culture

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Ryan Vesey 01:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

1950s' American automobile culture edit

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that 1950s' American automobile culture gave us the McDonalds double arch sign and suburbia?

Created/expanded by Dennis Brown (talk), Malleus Fatuorum (talk). Nominated by Dennis Brown (talk) at 14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is easy: new creation, great quality, hook verified, etc. It's sort of the anti-Marc Salles. Note: I'm in the article history with two or three edits, but they're not on the facts in the hook nor are they substantial compared to the heavy lifting by Dennis and Malleus. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with almost all of it (including a few edits) I am not happy with the "us" in the hook. It (McDonalds, suburbia) is a mixed blessing for whom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
ps: miss a pic --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is about American culture, one would suspect Americans, although McDonalds is certainly global. Suburbia, not so much. I supposed you could use "inspired" rather than "gave us". The suburbia pic is rather bleak [1] but effective. The hot rod pic would be "cooler". [2], if you wanted to include a pic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I am not American, I am not part of that "us", then ;) - "inspired" is way too positive! (btw: inspired referencing in that article!) "resulted"? "led to"? help! playing (with a comma):

ALT1: ... that in the 1950s, American automobile culture (detail pictured) led to the McDonald's double arch sign and suburbia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, and that is really a good image. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the possessive apostrophe to your "McDonald's", since that is how the company does it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not a fan of the comma at all. First, the double arch sign as we know it wasn't created until the 60s. The version with the comma implies that the sign was created in the 50s. In reality 1950s' American automobile culture led to the arches, which appeared in the 60s. (At least per Golden Arches. I like the idea of linking the arches rather than McDonald's in the hook, but that wouldn't be a huge issue. In addition, the version with the comma doesn't distinguish how American automobile culture was particularly significant in the 50s. American automobile culture existed in the 20s, but that form of American automobile culture wasn't what affected the McDonald's Arches. I'm also a bit concerned about the "gave us suburbia". The American suburb system began in the early 1900's with the streetcar suburb system. [3] That said, I'm less concerned because "suburbia" is related (as far as I know) to the "White flight" which was made possible through the automobile culture. On another note, McDonald's needs an apostrophe. Ryan Vesey 19:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the 1950s' American automobile culture (detail pictured) led to McDonald's double arch sign and suburbia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I'm concerned about having suburbia in there. Even looking at suburbia as "suburbia" and not as suburbs in general, 1950s' American automobile culture did not lead to it. The big factors that led to suburbia included a return to a family focus with a rejection of the traditional family. This meant nuclear families based around a single household. As part of this, and as this article states, single family homes were made available to G.I.s. There was clearly a synergistic relationship between suburbia and the automobile culture of the time (the article suggests this as well), but I wouldn't say that the automobile culture caused suburbia or that suburbia caused automobile culture. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Economist Richard Porter commented that "The automobile made suburbia possible, and the suburbs made the automobile essential."" and is cited within the article. The bulk of additional research, much of which isn't included, tie to the two together like peas and carrots. Without inexpensive and reliable automobiles, we wouldn't have built the suburbs, including Levittown, which was created in one fell swoop. I could get more detailed in the article, but then it would be an article on suburbia rather than automobile culture. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that and pointed out above that the two are synergistic. Automobiles were necessary for the growth of the suburbs, and the growth of the suburbs made the automobile much more important as well. That being said, it wasn't the automobile that led to suburbia. I pointed out above how suburbs began with the streetcar suburb so automobiles didn't lead to suburbs. Then there's a difference between suburbs and suburbia. Suburbia was a way of life. That was created by a new focus on the nuclear family. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it actually comes down to the lens someone looks at it through. It makes sense that an economist would focus on a change like the new automobile culture while a historian would focus on changes in the view of the family. Ryan Vesey 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this from the lens of American culture, the rapid increase of one required the other, regardless of which direction you start from. But the car did make it possible. Had we still been using horses and buggies, the suburbs would not have been created. The auto preceded the suburbs. They both help the other, but if you have to pick a definite statement on causation, then the chicken came before the egg. The car came first, which led to the suburbs (once they were affordable), which created higher demand for more cars, rinse, repeat. This is why the article is about the cultural influences of the automobile, and not the suburbs ;) The GI Bill made it affordable, but the automobile made it practical. Otherwise, everyone would have bought apartments downtown. Synergy doesn't mean that one can't drive the other, it only means they continue to feed each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)