Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

Request for Comment: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The debate favours exclusion in both cases. The numerical balance is clearly in favour of exclusion, but more to the point, the opinions of independent editors - those with the widest range of editing interests on Wikipedia - is most strongly against. This is an editorial judgment and not a policy matter, so breadth and depth of editorial experience is a significant factor. Perhaps the middle ground is to have a list of cars used in notable crimes or some such (a quick search did not find one). Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This RFC covers two automotive articles with similar disputed material. Please comment on either or both additions (please indicate an article if comments don't apply to both).

The specific addition to the Ford F-650 intro section page is below [[1]]:

A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The truck's key code and axle serial number became significant evidence in the trial of Timothy McVeigh.
  • Chronis, Peter G., "Key a 'stroke of genius'", The Denver Post
  • Berman, Marcia (July 20, 2001), "Vehicles That Left Telltale Evidence Behind", New York Times

The specific addition to the Chevrolet Caprice page as a section titled Famous Owners is below [[2]]:

The Beltway sniper attacks used a 1990 blue Caprice as a mobile snipers' nest. The car had been modified with a special opening for the rifle to shoot out the back of the trunk, and the back seat had been altered to allow entry to the trunk from within the passenger compartment. The snipers were abducted by the FBI while they slept in it. The events inspired a 2013 motion picture, Blue Caprice.

Springee (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Explanation Note: The text beginning "A 1993 Ford F-700" was written in the Ford F-650 article because a search on Ford F-700 directed to the Ford F-650 article at the time of writing, a redirect was changed Sept 6 to Ford F-700 during the discussion without notice on this project page or the Ford F-650 article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Notifications: Talk:Oklahoma City bombing ‎ , Talk:Beltway sniper attacks , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States History , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death ‎ , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands , Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Felsic2 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for closer on or after Oct 9th posted here [[3]] Springee (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

In both cases it could be. In the case of the F-700 truck, the rental company (frequently) and the manufacture (semi-frequently) are mentioned as details. Part serial numbers from the truck were used after the blast to back to a VIN and then to the specific truck rental. So the mention is more than just "a bottle of Coke was found in the dead man's hand" but wasn't something that was unique to the Ford truck. In the case of the Caprice the large size of the car's truck was used by the shooters. More articles talked about the way the shooters were firing through a whole cut in the trunk. Springee (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Collect (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Note: Dennis Bartland should have signed the above comment since he was the "An editor" in question [[4]] Springee (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, I think the use of the truck in the bombing is an important use of the truck, not a Trivia use. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog and important use is to be included in the truck article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
1. Ammonium nitrate ... :::Ammonium nitrate-based explosives were used in the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 and 2011 Delhi bombings, the 2013 Hyderabad blasts, and the 2011 bombing in Oslo.
2. SIG MCX...A SIG MCX was used in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.
3. Pressure Cooker...The appliance has been adapted as a crude type of bomb, which has been used in terrorist attacks.
2006 Mumbai train bombings, 2010 Stockholm bombings (failed to explode), 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt (failed to explode), 2013 Boston Marathon bombings CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I also would oppose adding the material to an article that talks about the 1993 F-700 (assuming similar detail to the material in the F-650 article) on the grounds of insufficient WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP. The material in question was added to the article lead, not the end of the body suggesting that it would be discussed in greater detail in the body and that it was considered highly significant to the topic. Weight says we should include material in proportion to it's prominence in coverage of the topic. Discussions of the F-700 used in the bombing seem limited to articles that focus on the crime, not the Ford truck. Thus it is appropriate to include the Ford truck in the Oklahoma City bombing article (and it is) but there is simply no weight in RSs supporting inclusion in an article about Ford's medium duty trucks (or the 1993 generation of the trucks). BALASP notes that, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." The use of a rented truck to carry a bomb seems to be an isolated event with no long term impact on the design, marketing, sales, reputation etc of the Ford medium duty trucks. As another editor said, notoriety is not communicative. Details of the Ford truck were used to help break the bombing case. It hasn't been shown the bombing had any impact on Ford products.
User:Springee In summary, we have opposite opinions on interpretations.
1. The reason the use of the F-700 bombing is in the F-650 article is the F-700 search directed to the F-650 article at the time of writing. The redirect was changed to the F-700 article without notice, mid-discussion. The F-700 bombing use is On Topic for the F-700 article.
2. The weight/importance of the use of the truck and Chevy Caprice in historical events I consider are sufficient to include in the articles, and your WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP arguments are not valid.
3 I consider the Not commutative argument is irrelevant and invalid. The sources reporting the facts are sufficient to include the facts in the articles.
4. Wikipedia is more than a car catalog and important uses are to be included in articles. The use not affecting design is irrelevant in these two incidents. The fact the 2 vehicles were used in the incidents is what I consider is important to note in the articles.
4 Don't censor articles. I personally hate that the incidents and deaths happened, but think the incidents should be stated in the articles and the use of the vehicles in the incidents not be censored in the articles.
5. Not Trivia. Considering the use of the vehicles in the 2 incidents and deaths is Trivia, like a movie start using a vehicle at a movie premier is not a valid argument to me.
5 I think a See also is not sufficient to give readers the reason to see also; statements like "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" are adequate, if the info now in the articles is in the linked articles. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
CuriousMind01, perhaps this is a pet peeve, but please do not claim "censorship". Policy WP:NOTCENSORED says it is inappropriate to remove content solely because some people find it offensive for sexual, religious, or similar reasons. It is not "censorship" for someone to argue that the content does not belong in the article for other reasons. Many 9/11 hijackers wore khakis. We don't mention 9/11 in the khakis article. Alsee (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alsee thank you for your viewpoint and explanation and education. Also separately, I understand your 9/11 highjackers khaki analogy for a khaki article, but I don't think the analogy applies here, the khakis were peripheral to the hijacking, the cars were instruments in the crimes. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


User:Eddaido, the reason the vehicles were chosen by the perpetrators, is not stated in the articles. I think statements like "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" are adequate, if all the relevant information now in the F-650 article and Chevy Caprice article is moved or stated in the 2 target linked articles, if both authors agree.CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
User:OSX, I don't think WP:CARTRIVIA applies, WP:CARTRIVIA has no mention of notoriety and there is no notoriety mention in the text in discussion. WP:CARTRIVIA refers to minor uses like a celebrity rode in a car. The use of the vehicles in Oklahoma bombing and Sniper attacks are more serious and not trivial to me, the Ford F-700 key and axle id were used to identify the bomber, and the F-700 was used in the bombing. the Chevy was modified to be a sniper car and kill people, two acts more serious than a celebrity appearance.CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hence why I said "as per the spirit of WP:CARTRIVIA". OSX (talk • contributions) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
We have different opinions of what is Trivia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the F-650 text should be moved to the F-700 article, now that the F-700 search is changed as originally existing when the text was written, to result in the F-700 article.
I do not think a "see also" by itself is adequate because "see also" does not provide enough information to a written to explain why the reader should see another article. More text is needed.
I think a phrase like: "A Ford F-700 was used in the Oklahoma City bombing" and "A Chevy Caprice was used in the Beltway Sniper attacks" is adequate if all the information in the F-650 article and Chevy Caprice article is moved or stated in the 2 target linked articles, if both authors agree. CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
PRESERVE states we should keep the information if it would be part of a good article on the subject. It does not say keep information which wouldn't be part of a good article. That is if NPOV says the material doesn't belong in the article it should be removed. Springee (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
And what does WP:BLUDGEON say?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We seem to have different subjective interpretations of the WP policies, which are subjective general principles. I think the info should stay in each article because the info is an important use of each vehicle, and important use belongs in an encyclopedia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:EllenCT, I think the fact the vehicles were used in the notable events, the 2 crimes, is important and noteworthy to mention in the articles, (a bombing killing 168 people, and the sniper attacks lasting 3 weeks with 10 people killed, also creating fear in the area for 3 weeks). I think limiting vehicle article facts to only incidents where "the make and model of an automobile was an essential component" is unnecessary and incorrectly restrictive for an encyclopedia, and is not within any Wikipedia guidelines that I can find.
Also per the text: "The truck's key code and axle serial number became significant evidence in the trial of Timothy McVeigh." Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Boivie, why do you think use of the vehicles is not relevant in the articles? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than a car catalog, and important uses (good & bad) are included in Wikipedia articles.Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Or take a look at the first WP:Featured Article on the list, to see how these policies are actually applied. You will see facts that don't meet this strict standard of relevance or weight. Look at the next one, and the next one, or any random FA. Wikipedia's best content doesn't apply these rules in the tortured, onerous way that is being proposed for these car articles. The normal way that humans talk about any subject includes background details and connections outside the subject, and scrubbing such mentions looks weird and stilted, calling attention to the writer and the writing rather than the subject. But we're stuck on this idea that because it's a car we treat it differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
User:CuriousMind01, other users have written lots of good arguments here above. Ford produced thousands of trucks of this model, and only one of them were used in the bombing. And, as written before, this didn't affect the truck's design, marketing, sales, reputation or notoriety in any way. That specific truck was used like any other truck; for transporting stuff. What happened with that stuff afterwards is relevant for Wikipedia, but not in the context of the truck model. ⛐Boivie (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Boivie, "Good arguments" is subjective, Me, I have not read a good argument yet, that justifies omitting the use of the truck in the encyclopedia article. I think the opposite. The use of the F-700 in the Oklahoma bombing and it's key# and axel# being evidence to find and convict the bomber are relevant facts worth adding to the truck model article. Thank you for your explanation, CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think this idea of commutative relationship is invalid and irrelevant. I have never read it anyplace except in this auto discussion. In general I found vehicle articles, or chemical articles, or gun articles, deliberately do not include anything about bad uses, only good uses, or no uses, and can bias building an encyclopedia, omitting important facts.

If the sources state the make and model used in the Oklahoma bombing and sniper attacks, I think that is adequate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, more than a car catalog and the facts belong in the vehicle articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing that out. WP:TRIVIA is quite clear: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." Stepho-wrs and Springee are incorrect in citing that as having any relevance to this RfC at all.

    Trivia's cousin, "In popular culture" content, is primarily a problem when it is not well-sourced. "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not." When you have a 3rd party source that tells us why the connection matters, it's worth including. We want to avoid lists of appearances or shout outs where the only source is the primary work, a movie or TV show or whatever, with no secondary source asserting that it mattered in some way.

    Reliable sources saying why the truck and the Caprice were important have been cited multiple times, but for some reason those reason aren't even being refuted, just ignored as if they didn't exist.

    The WP:CARTRIVIA advice page's stuff about strictly limited to influence on sales, design, blah blah, are trumped by policy and guidelines. Influencing the car or truck is one route to inclusion, but it's not the only route. The guidelines say secondary sources can give us other reasons why it matters. Clues that led to the arrest of McVeih, and evidence that led to his conviction, obviously matter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see a consensus for the CARTRIVIA section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. In any case, it's an advice page which is the equivalent of a personal essay, not a guideline. Felsic2 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Participants might like to consider the last paragraph in this item. Eddaido (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
That I think is a harder case to call (like OJ and the Ford Bronco) because I think we can argue that the association with Bonnie and Clyde is something that people frequently associate with the car. As an example I just did a news article search (standard search resulted in a flood of sale listings) and the second article (Autoweek) was right up front with the association (search terms, "1934 Ford V8 coupe", second result [[5]]). Thus one can make a reasonable argument for WEIGHT. That said, it's also possible that that material should be removed per WP:CARTRIVIA. I can't recall the exact essay but there is one related to WP:OSE which notes that Wikipedia is written by many people over a long period of time and thus isn't always consistent. We shouldn't assume other articles are correct when we assume to use them as precedent. Springee (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Just the same, consider Brough Superior, Kawasaki GPZ900R, and Honda CB77. The thing with all of these is somebody will say other stuff exists. I prefer to look to the examples of Featured Articles because we know that those who wrote and evaluated them are quite diligent about policy and guidelines. Their interpretation these rules is strong evidence of what the community standards really are. So consider Pioneer Zephyr#Use in film, or Royal Blue (train)'s shoutouts to FDR, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip. Also: SS Edmund Fitzgerald#Musical and theater tributes, or SS Kroonland#Notable passengers. 7 World Trade Center would delete mention of the Boesky insider-trading scandal by the standard that is being claimed to exist here. I could go on listing many more FAs like these. There is ample evidence that this tortured, restrictive reading of the undue weight policy and total misreading of the trivia guidelines is not shared by the larger Wikipedia community. Manual of Style/Trivia sections does not mean what WP:CARTRIVIA thinks it means. WP:CARTRIVIA's claim that it's "widely accepted" is demonstrably false. A far different standard is applied by the extremely thorough featured article process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You initiated an RfC to have WP:CARTRIVIA changed/removed. It wasn't changed as a result of your RFC. Regardless we don't have to rely on cartrivia. WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP along with WP:CONSENSUS are sufficient. With respect to your examples, well the Brough Superior isn't a good example. A quick web search and most first page links mention TE Lawrence. The reborn company lists Lawrence as a famous owner so it has impacted marketing. Springee (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages: "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and a search shows that you worked rather hard to get people to look at the RfC, posted quite a few notifications and in the end nothing changed. You could take your case to WP:NPOVN. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody cares what I did or didn't do. All that matters is that policy and guidelines overrule that advice page. Your opinion that WP:TRIVIA says the exact opposite of what it really says is merely your opinion, and it's an opinion that's quite wrong. The WP:CONSENSUS policy says your wrong opinions, and the opinions of any others that are equally wrong, don't count. "Unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

Nobody has to bend to obey an essay that is no better than one editor saying "I like it this way." See WP:POLICIES: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think the consensus is wrong I would suggest WP:NPOVN or perhaps WP:RFAR. Springee (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No, no such thing is necessary. Essays that contradict policies and guidelines can, and should, simply be ignored, as you can easily read in the policies I already quoted. Nobody has to go on some long dispute resolution odyssey to ignore a meaningless essay. The closing admin is supposed to disregard !votes that contradict policies and guidelines, as explained, again, in WP:Consensus. Bludgeon the process all you want, the facts don't change. If you or others want WP:CARTRIVIA to be taken seriously, the burden is on you to propose raising it's status. At which time you'll be told it needs to be brought in line with existing policies and guidelines. As you pointed out, I tried to bring it into accord with the broader community's consensus, and a couple editors objected, so here we are, erroneously quoting an essay that carries zero weight. A move request to put WP:WPAC into the user namepace would likely succeed, though I don't see the need, since we all know we can ignore it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well all you have to do is stop bludgeoning the process and convince people that the WP:NPOV (ie the WEIGHT and BALASP issues) and/or WP:CONSENSUS policies aren't being followed. Bludgeoning this discussion, accusing others of bad faith etc and failing to FOC isn't going to do it. Springee (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
RE: WEIGHT. If there are a hundred mainstream general interest magazines or newspapers which mention the involvement of a vehicle in an historic event, then NPOV/WEIGHT would seem to argue for inclusion. To take the example of Caprice, much of the material in that article is sourced to obscure sources. Isn't it important to include the information that is the most widely reported? Felsic2 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


Both sides have listed their views, refuted the opposite views, repeated themselves, become entrenched and started name calling. I see little hope in either side changing their view or introducing new points. At this point we either:

  1. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. Which means we return the articles to their previous state - in the case of the F-650 article we remove the bombing information and in the Caprice article we remove the Beltway information. Or
  2. We call in the administrators to make a ruling and we all live by that ruling. WP:CONTENTDISPUTE covers this.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Stepho-wrs, I think these requests normally run a month to allow editors time to submit comments, I recommend we allow the request to run a month before proceeding to your recommendations. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
As CuriousMind01 says above, RFCs usually run a month, then an admin or involved editor applies a consensus close. Usually the outcome is in line with the majority, but Policy based arguments carry more weight and other factors may apply. Alsee (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alsee I understand the WP:WEIGHT differently. The 2 vehicles were direct instruments used to commit the crimes so I think there is a direct connection in the vehicle articles to note the vehicle were used in a crime, as stated by sources. I think vehicle articles in books, magazines, jornals et al, in my experience tend not to report crimes or only state good use, their mission is not be be an encyclopedia. NYTimes1 is one of the few articles I know that covers crimes.
I think an encyclopedia's mission is to be more than a vehicle catalog or blog, and include uses. To use a good analogy you made above. If the criminals wore khakis to commit the crimes, that would not be relevant to the khaki article, as the khakis were peripheral, but because the vehicles were instruments used to commit the crime, is worth noting in the vehicle articles, similar to the 3 Wikipedia examples I noted above in Comment2. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both I think the articles about the vehicles should each include a brief mention of their use in the respective crimes. The vehicles were essential to the perpetration of the crimes. Other vehicles could have been used, but these were the ones that actually were; I regard that information as encyclopedic, not trivial. There is some precedent, as seen in the article (in its current version): Renault Midlum. (That article gives a wrong reference for stating the vehicle's use, but other RS do contain the information.) DonFB (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate I think the lasting effect is the historical fact the vehicles were used in the 2 crimes and the deaths, which I do not consider trivia. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
User SarekOfVulcan I think the fact that the Ford and Caprice were used in the 2 events is important to state in an encyclopedia article about the vehicles, because an encyclopedia is more than a vehicle blog or catalog.Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Masem I think the fact that the Ford and Caprice were used in the 2 events, as a main tool/instrument of the crime crime is important to state in an encyclopedia article about the vehicles, because an encyclopedia is more than a vehicle blog or catalog. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
CM01, you have mentioned this point many times but I do not think it holds water. In both case the vehicles were definitely a tool in the crime, so the vehicle is related to the crime and should be mentioned on the crime article. But the vehicles could have been easily substituted by other vehicles in the same class and the reputation of the vehicle was not changed. This is why we talk about WP:WEIGHT. The vehicle affected the crime but the crime did not affect the vehicle. I'm sure that if I searched hard enough I could find a crime committed with almost any mass produced vehicle you care to mention but we deliberately avoid going down this path. Saying that WP is more than a blog or vehicle catalogue allows the articles to be filled up with references to famous owners, movie appearances, etc - none of which is useful to the average person. Or to put it another way, if somebody own the same vehicle would a significant number of acquaintances ask "Hey, is that the same type of vehicle that was involved in the bombing?" We try to keep the articles focused on the vehicle itself.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
In Ford Torino, we have this sentence: "The 1972 Ford Gran Torino Sport SportsRoof was featured in the movie Gran Torino, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood." If we're consistent, should we delete that too? Felsic2 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, per CARTRIVIA it should be. It is also likely it should be due to a reasonable reading of the relevant parts of NPOV. Springee (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a bit of a self serving answer. The Project Firearms page specifically states that mentions of crimes should only be included in limited cases [[6]] and you have personally be involved in several such debates (in fact that is likely why you added the material to the Caprice article). The movie you cite had a very limited release and went by two different names depending on region. Other movies have been named for cars but that doesn't mean the movie makes it to the car's article. Springee (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 Stepho  I think "the reputation of the vehicle was not changed." "The vehicle affected the crime but the crime did not affect the vehicle." are not relevant to the fact the vehicles were the tools used in 2 major crimes.
"I could find a crime committed with almost any mass produced vehicle you care to mention but we deliberately avoid going down this path." I am not stating all crimes be stated, just these 2 major crimes, or any major crime.
""Saying that WP is more than a blog or vehicle catalogue allows the articles to be filled up with references to famous owners, movie appearances," I don't think that is true, only major uses are in an encyclopedia. I don't think it is an all or nothing situation, a slippery slope argument is not valide.
" We try to keep the articles focused on the vehicle itself." Who is we? I don't find any criteria written? No one owns the articles. I think that focus is invalid for an encyclopedia. WP is not a blog or car catalog, and important uses are included for vehicles, chemicals, pressure cookers, et al. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Miguel Escopeta I think your statements are not valid or consistent for an encyclopedia and are subjective (to which you are entitled). I think important uses good/bad are included in an encyclopedia. Ex: If the pistol used in Columbine is noted in the pistol article, than the F-700 vehicle used in the largest mass domestic terror incident is equally important to note in the vehicle article. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose both. The notoriety must go both ways for an inclusion. Mention a Carcano rifle, and one immediately thinks of the JFK assassination. Mention a White Ford Bronco, and OJ comes to mind. Mention a non-descript Ford truck or a Caprice, and no connection is tacitly assumed to any event or crime. Advocating inclusion of what is, at best, trivia, with no obvious connection to a crime, is not how an encyclopedia works. Would you also advocate inserting criminal usages into the Ford Pinto, Mazda pickup, and Toyota Tundra pickup articles for the same reasons, too? No. The reason is that they have not been conflated with the crimes committed when they were being driven, and the notoriety is not bi-directional. (I just happen to know of major crimes committed by individuals that were coincidentally driving these particular vehicles.) The same is true for Ford trucks and Caprice cars. There is not a need to clutter Wikipedia with anti-firearm criminality additions, nor of then inserting criminality additions on automobiles and trucks articles, in the hopes of then justifying the insertion of anti-gun propaganda into just firearm articles by justifying that a particular Ford truck or a Chevrolet Caprice article also mentioned a criminal use. Very disruptive editing, at the very worst. Naive thinking, at the very best. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Miguel Escopeta There is no mention of notoriety in the text wording. The vehicles were the major tools used to commit the crimes. Encyclopedias include facts of important use, good and bad use. The statements are not anti firearm additions, nor building anti firearm propaganda, which you seem to think. They are neutral important historical facts of usage, not clutter, not disruptive editing, not naive, it is facts in an encyclopedia. We have different opinions. Thank you,
WarKosign I think the facts the 2 vehicles were the important tools used in 2 major crimes is what makes the facts important to include in the 2 articles. I think WP:Trivia is being misunderstood and does not state exclude facts. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@CuriousMind01: Was it important that the vehicles used were of these particular models ? Would it affect the planning or outcome if any other model was used? If the answer is no, then it a trivia item. “WarKosign” 19:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign That is is your opinion, and your interpretation of trivia, which I think are irrelevant criteria for an encyclopedia. You ask speculation questions, not history questions. How would anyone know if changing things in the past, would affect the outcome? What does it matter? Was the F-700 used in the largest domestic terror incident, as a fact yes. Is that fact important, I think yes. Do important facts belong in an encyclopedia, I think yes. Similar to the use of pressure cookers, guns and chemicals used in major crimes which are in WP articles.
As an example, as someone wrote above, a ($19.95) Carcano rifle was used to kill JFK. Was it important the model used was a Carcano in particular, would the planning and outcome be any different if another model was used? Does anyone know? no, the questions are speculation questions and irrelevant.
Disregarding the speculation questions, Is the fact a Carcano rifle was used to kill JFK important, and to be in an encyclopedia? Is the fact in WP? Yes. I think the same importance principle applies for actual vehicle use in major crimes also.
Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
No need to speculate. Unless there is something unique about the model that was essential, any other car would've serve the exactly same purpose. With the rifle it is also a trivial bit of information, perhaps a bit less so because assassination of US presidents are less common than acts of terror, and rifle's main purpose is to kill. “WarKosign” 19:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It's peevish and arbitrary to set an imaginary bar so high as that you can't so much as mention an event unless something about the car was unique or essential. TE Lawrence could have loved any other motorcycle, and he could have died on any other motorcycle, but in fact, it was the Brough Superior because that bike had certain characteristics. Not unique or essential ones -- you could have substituted something -- but not absolutely any bike. The Hondells and the Beach Boys could have sung about some other bike besides the Honda Super Cub, but not any bike at all. The Super Cub was one of several bikes that could have filled this role. But there was nothing unique or essential about it. If you were to apply this incredibly strict standard to our WP:FA articles, you'd be deleting several bits of "trivia" from every one of them. Well-written articles have a little trivia in them. Content policy doesn't say 'no trivia allowed'. The the MOS proscribes trivia and pop culture sections, but not the content itself. Only the practice of segregating it in a section, much like controversy sections are poor style. We've got to stop misreading the MOS this way.

The only reason for having this tortuously high standard for keeping so-called "trivia" out of articles is if there were some harm caused by so-called trivia. BLPs can cause harm, so the BLP policy exists to prevent such harm. But this is not about BLPs, and so we don't have a need to arbitrarily invent a strict rule like "must be unique and essential" before any so-called "trivia" is so much as mentioned.

Having editors go out of their way to patrol articles to root out so-called "trivia" based on this misreading of the MOS and misreading of editing and content policy is harmful to Wikipedia. Leave it in, let the article grow, mature and be polished. If or when it reaches a late stage and is a GA or FA candidate, then a discussion of whether it is a little more perfect or a little less perfect if it mentions one of these crimes can be had. But censoring a particular category of facts across many articles when they are at the Stub or C stage is against editing policy and several other policies. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is WEIGHT and the like still apply. You have used Brough Superior as an example but it's not a good example. The current manufacture advertises that Lawrence road one of their bikes (or at least of the original company). A quick search for articles on the bike turns up many that mention the TEL connection. For that reason one can argue that Wikipedia should mention the connection because reliable sources ABOUT THE BIKE do as well. The same is true of several of the firearms examples offered. When 2 of 3 a firearms collector/enthusiast articles on the first page of a search for a particular gun mention a connection to a famous crime/criminal then it is reasonable to say the two are associated. What is not reasonable is assuming that the two are associated just because a reports of a crime note that the shooter's car was an X. Meeting the Pope might have had a big impact on say a mayor of Cincinnati. That doesn't mean the mayor had an impact on the Pope. Springee (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wish you didn't feel you must reply to every single thing I post in this discussion. Couldn't somebody else have answered me, if I'm really so wrong? Or simply ignored me, if I'm that deluded as to what policy says? But no, you must beat this dead horse.

My argument in the above comment doesn't address W.E.I.G.H.T., all-powerful, all-knowing rule that apparently must be applied to every single sentence added to every single article on Wikipedia. I've already said what I think about WP:WEIGHT, and there isn't a need to rehash that after I've already done so more than once. I commented, on topic, on what WarKosign said. But now here you are. Again.

You have once again given us an example of disruptive editing in the form of WP:STONEWALLing: "Bad-faith negotiating" also known as the old bait and switch, or special pleading. I was addressing here in WarKosign's two specific hoops that so-called "trivia" must jump through: 1) be unique, 2) be essential. I provided two examples that were neither unique nor essential, and alluded to basically any FA you care to name.

Now you introduce abrand new rule specially invented for the case of Brough Superior: "Trivia [sic] is OK if the company's marketing department sticks it into an ad"!?! So the company marketers have a say in Wikipedia content? Why not just let paid editors write the article? Your made-up standard is silly for several reasons. Here's a couple:

  • Brough Superior was defunct for the first three years of the Wikipedia article's existence. So until 2008, there were no ads with TE Lawrence in them, and so you would have had Wikipedia not mention Lawrence's love of the marque.
  • The New Brough marketing department only chose to spotlight the positive in their postmortem celebrity endorsement. They don't advertise that the man was killed by a Brough. Hence, you would have us delete that fact, by this newest rule you pulled out of your ass five minutes ago. Similarly Honda's use of pop music about the Super Cub in their ads mentions only part of the story, what they think makes their company look good, not the more absurd aspects.
Both the Honda and Brough examples fail WP:CARTRIVIA, i.e., "strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle." We have zero data saying Lawrence or the Hondells affected the sales of these bikes. This "influenced the sales" thing is nonsense of course: who can say how many Broughs would have sold had Lawrence not liked it? It's the post hoc fallacy to assume the event made sales rise or fall.

Similarly, we will never really know if an event influenced a "tangible" aspect of a vehicle. We're never privy to every design and engineering decision. We only know after the vesicle goes on sale what the marketing department tells you the rationale for using 8" wheels or blue paint was. Maybe they're too embarrassed to admit they ran out of green so they are saying they painted the car blue as an homage to Picasso's blue period. Nobody can prove it isn't.

The reason I'm systematically rubbishing all these arbitrary rules, uniqueness, being essential, being used in marketing, supposedly affecting sales, and even being the purported reason for adding a rear spoiler to the Koenigsegg CCX, is that nobody has explained why such strict, arbitrary rules are necessary "because it's a car". Who cares if it's a car? What if the article is about a continent? Or an opera? Or a species of frog? If it's not a BLP, then there's no good reason to apply any special snowflake standard beyond content policy. WP:WPAC must be brought into compliance with policy and guidelines; the Automobile Project's use of an essay to deviate from those higher-order rules are null and void and should be ignored.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please FOC and drop the accusations of bad faith. Springee (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Same to you. FOC yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Name calling ceases immediately from both sides or we call the administrators in.  Stepho  talk  04:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
WarKosign We have different opinions. I consider "Would history be different if "questions, speculation, and not relevant to use for an encyclopedia, I only consider the actual history facts. I consider the use of the 2 vehicles important to include in an encyclopedia in the vehicle articles. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Springee You mention weight, in my reading of WP:NPOV weight is used to apply to neutrality, so no viewpoint is given undue weight. But Facts are neutral, and the weight principle does not apply to facts per my understanding. (some people may be emotionally affected by the facts, but that is a different situation.) Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
NPOV deals both with balancing differing opinions as well as balance the relative coverage of material in an article. I think if you ask you will find almost no editors who think WEIGHT etc only apply when facts or interpretations aren't in agreement. Turning the question around, assume someone found a reliable article that said Ford contracted with company X to provide toilette paper for the bathrooms in their HQ building through 2018. Would you feel such material should be included in the main Ford article. What policy or guideline would you use to remove such reliable yet insignificant material from the article? Springee (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It's more comparable to saying that Ford contracted with Michelin for tires for its trucks. But whichever, the Wikipedia policy is that we use prominence in reliable sources to determine weight, not our own views of what is significant or important. If 100 good sources talk about something then it is deemed more important than something which only mentioned in a couple of obscure sources. Is there any other objective way described in WP policies to decide on content? Felsic2 (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
SpringeeNPOV deals with balancing different viewpoints, the analogy is balancing weights on a balancing scale to keep the two scales in balance to provide a neutral point of view, not to exclude neutral facts from an encyclopedia. I think people misinterprept NPOV and weight, and misapply it, like the same misapply with WP:Trivia. Regarding your example, there is no policy to exclude the fact. Person A may think the fact is important to add, and build into a Ford HQ supplies contract section; Person B may think the fact is not important and irrelevant, then discussions follow. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
NPOV and the subsections on weight and balance aspects make it clear that it applies to how we balance reliable information within an article. This is why I mentioned my Ford bathroom example to illustrate the point. What policy or guideline would we use to remove information about Ford's bathroom product supplier (from a RS) from the main Ford article? WEIGHT and BALASP (and perhaps others) are the important policies in this hypothetical example even though the example doesn't deal with matters of relative opinion or interpretation. Springee (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Springee. We have different interpretations, "clear" and "applies" are subjective. I think the NPOV sometimes gets misapplied to delete neutral info building an encyclopedia per WP:Preserve, info they don't like or think irrelevant. I realize WP policies are vague general principles, where people make interpretative opinions. We may be getting into a deeper discussion here than applies to this discussion. If you wish we can continue policy interpretations on our talk pages, and/or stay here. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Instaurare, the text is not being proposed for the lead, The 2 sections you mentioned do not exclude the neutral facts from an encyclopedia. I also do not consider the facts "trivia". Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Copy of replies from article talk pages: These are replies posted under the RfC notices on the article talk pages.

Delete content It's not so much because of its notoriety/relevance, but there is another reason for deleting this content. It is relating to a specific vehicle produced in 1993 involved in a 1995 incident. The vehicle that is referred to on this talk page did not begin production until 2000, five years later. In other words, if anywhere, that content belongs on Ford F-Series seventh generation in the subsections related to the medium-duty trucks. SteveCof00[[7]]
I read this as move content comment, which was written when the F-700 search result went to the F-650 article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I read it as the editor wasn't sure the information should be in the article in any case but he was certain it shouldn't be in the F-650 article (note that the content was removed then restored to the F-650 article). Thus the comment may not address if we should have it in any F-700 article but the editor was certain it shouldn't be where it is now. Springee (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody would need to speculate on what SteveCof00 intended to say if you hadn't copy-pasted his comment from it's original context. We don't do that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dennis, SteveCof00 replied to the RfC notice at the F-650 article. His comment clearly applied to the discussion and it's quite possible he didn't realize that the actual RfC discussion was here vs on the article talk page. Most of the time an RfC about an article is actually at the article's talk page, but not in this case. I did this for ALL editors who replied to the RfC notices on the F-650 and Caprice talk pages. Links were included for verification purposes. The editors were pinged as well. Springee (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You may not stage-manage RfCs, or make assumptions about what other people intend. It's not acceptable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No... I object to and oppose the addition of said information. RAF910 [[8]]

Please note that replies to the above comments were not copied. Springee (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No... I object to and oppose the addition of said information.--RAF910 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
RAF910 But what are your encyclopedia reasons for your position? CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:ONUS. The person adding the information has to convince his follow editors that the information has encyclopedic value, not the other way around. And, I object to adding a body count to these articles. If you don't understand my position, then read WP:NOT LISTENING. I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time.--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
For each of those, the event itself is plainly notable, and the use of a car/truck was an essential component of the plan, so mention of the model is not undue weight in the event articles. However, any similar car/truck could have been used with essentially the same results. If in the other direction the event did not affect the car (which could be sales, design etc. but I think pretty much any sourced info that the average person knows about that use of the car would be enough), I see no reason for the mention.
Note: I was summoned by the bot and have not read the whole thing, since some parts did not seem very useful. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
User Timtempleton , fyi, I was interested in your comments, if interested here are mine:
1. I think the actual historical fact the vehicle was used is important, not the type. Ex: The Pilgrims used the Mayflower & Columbus the Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria ships, other ships or types could have been used, nothing was special about the ships used. fyi, I am not equating the F-7000 with the ships in historical importance.
2. Overloading I don't think applies to an encyclopedia, people can choose what to read.
3. Where does it end, a slippery slope appproach, doesn't apply, the vehicles were the major instruments used to commit the crimes, the clothes etc. worn were not relevant. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion?

This RfC expired two weeks back. A request for closing had been filled based on statements that consensus isn't clear cut. Currently, and including comments made after closing the discussion is ~20:5 against inclusion. If consensus was just a vote then the consensus is clearly for removal. WP:Consensus says that quality of argument must also be considered. WP:consensus is also clear that if a consensus can not be reached the article reverts back. In this case that also means remove the material in question. There are a backlog of RfC closing requests and this one may be open for a while if they are addressed in order. If the RfC isn't closed by a third party in the next week I propose reverting the article changes based on the fact that only a 'consensus for inclusion', unlikely given 20:5 against, would result in inclusion in this case. Springee (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Springee, I recommend waiting until the RFC is closed. Reasons:

1. You requested the RFC
2. You requested an RFC close, wait for the close.
3. The RFC and discussion has had contention, including the last time you tried to remove the text, after requesting the RFC close but while the request was still open and you did not wait for a close. Let the process work.
4. There are no deadlines in WP.
5. The text is factual, there are no false statements, no harm is being done.
6. There is no emergency to bypass the close request process.
7. Note: This is the 3rd time in this case, it seems you did not wish to wait for a discussion or a process to end, before making text changes. Please wait. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with 1-7, and add reason 8: It's not a vote. If it were just a vote a bot could count up the votes and close discussions. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". Only a human can determine consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I requested the RfC which is now over. Yes, I requested the close because Dennis was all but demanding it and it would help set a president of similar questions come up in the future. My concern regarding waiting for the close is that some of the requests for closure are months old. I disagree that the results of this RfC are in any dispute (vs conduct associated with the RfC). Also, given the results of this RfC the only way the material would remain is if the closer felt those opposed to inclusion were simply wrong. Else we have a no consensus in which case the material should be removed. I'm OK with waiting a reasonable period of time but not forever. How long is reasonable? I would think three weeks is sufficient. Springee (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
You just repeated several arguments which you have previously posted, including my favorite, your "heads I win, tails you lose" interpretation of "no consensus". If you believe that there is no way this can be closed except by giving you what you want, deleting the content, then you're saying the RfC was pointless from the beginning. You just invited all these editors to do all this reading, and reply to all your replies, when in fact it was all a waste of time. Either it gets deleted, or, because the support for keeping it is not unanimous, that means "no consensus", which means it gets deleted. This was the same argument you made the very beginning, when when CuriousMind01, Felsic2, and I wanted to include it, and you alone opposed, you believed 3:1 equals no consensus, which equals delete the content. You think you must always 'get your way.

You believe that you alone have veto power to delete anything you don't like. "No consensus" always defaults to "delete" -- lucky you!

Not so. You alone do not get to determine what is kept. You alone to not get to determine what is a reasonable amount of time. You alone do not get to decide when an RfC is over. You alone do not get to decide what consensus is. You alone do not get to decide what the default or status quo of "no consensus" is. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

You see how absurd your premise is? The fact is, content may be kept, even if you object. Even if a majority vote objects, because...? It's. Not. A. Vote. You do not always get your way.

Anyway, yes, this might take months to find someone to close it. Maybe it will never be closed. Scroll up and count how many times you have repeated the same points. That's why. Impatient? Too bad. We have all the time in the world because the existence of these few sentences in a few articles is not causing any harm, and they are verifiable facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to counter a few points that Dennis raised.
Re: "You alone". Multiple editors spoke the same view as Springee (including myself), just not as loudly.
Multiple editors have expressed reasons for both sides. From the comments expressed, I don't think a single person was persuaded to change from one side to the other. That tells me consensus was not reached, certainly not by reasoning.
Springee was accused of trying to close the discussion when it favoured him (since no consensus happens to give the same result that he wants). We could also argue that you are trying to artificially extend the discussion until you win - which comes back to who gets to determine when it is over.
So, my recommendation is to set a deadline and then ask an administrator to make a ruling. I suggest 7 Nov 2016 as a date plucked out of the air roughly 2 weeks away.  Stepho  talk  23:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Artificial? What's artificial about having a third party determine consensus? I'm not holding out for more !votes. If we want to cut off comments so no more trickle in, I have no problem with that. Cap the discussion, and wait for a closer to determine consensus. I thought we already asked an admin to rule, at requests for closure. If you think you can ask again and recruit somebody to take the job, by all means, find one. We don't need to wait two weeks if any neutral admin is willing to do it now.

My point about "Springee alone" was not that he has zero support. My point is that he believes as long as he alone holds out, there is no consensus. And no consensus means well-cited content must be removed. Which means he can never fail to get his way whenever he wants to delete something. He expects every RfC or other discussion to be closed "no consensus" if it is not unanimous, and he expects that to always default to "delete".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are there any hypothetical circumstances where Springee thinks his deletion should be overruled? Keep in mind, this is exactly what happened at Chrysler. The closer overruled the popular vote and kept the content. That is a valid outcome. He actually attempted to ignore the RfC's ruling, as I say, he doesn't think he can ever fail if he wants something deleted. Even when an RfC closes as "keep". Springee is now saying the only way the material would remain is if the closer said "those opposed to inclusion were simply wrong." Springee denies it is possible and legitimate for the majority to be ruled to be wrong. But that's why this is not a vote.

I'm not holding my breath for the same result here. I know most of the time, closers go with the majority. But I would like a neutral third party to at least understand the issues and make that decision, rather than leave it up to Springee. He always awards himself first prize. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since three weeks isn't OK then I'll second the 7th. At that point we follow WP:consensus. As a group we can't agree so we don't have consensus. No consensus means remove it. Hopefully we will get a closer before then but really, dragging out a 20:5 against decision by claiming that those 20 might not have made reasonable arguments is ridiculous. Dennis, please drop your claims about the Chrysler article. Your memory of the events is wrong. The closer sided with the majority. I admitted that consensus was against me and accepted the added material [[9]]. You should do the same. Springee (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
"No consensus" does not mean remove it. It's not a "20:5 decision", because it's not a vote. No decision has been made, and the vote count is not equivalent to a decision. It's possible that "no consensus" will mean that we leave the text there with an [undue weight? – discuss] tag until some future time when consensus can be worked out. Because we do have all the time in the world. Or perhaps some other outcome. Who knows what decision will be made? If you are planning on a deletion spree, you might want to reconsider. This heavy-handed, unilateral action is not a good idea. Instead, ask yourself, "what would other editors do?" When you find yourself acting alone, in a way that nobody else, even your allies, behaves, ask yourself why.

"No consensus" does not mean remove it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the No Consensus section of the consensus policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Now you are arguing both against an overwhelming consensus and against policy. Springee (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Enough! Please do remove it. Eddaido (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for an administrator to step in. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles. I'm going to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse until the administrator tells us which way to go.  Stepho  talk  11:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Springee regarding your statement: "I'm OK with waiting a reasonable period of time but not forever. How long is reasonable?" Reasonable is whatever is time needed for an administrator to process the close rfc request you created, in which you requested an administrator close the rfc, which you created. The reason is volunteer administrators work on the requests as they can. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More