User talk:Davidjohnaustin

Re. Nash Metropolitan article.

Wikipedia entries are intended as a useful on-line encyclopedia where people can look up salient facts associated with a certain topic.

They should consist of verifiable information to help viewers understand the history and key factors relevant to the subject matter.

The various statements contained in the reference that was added are not in accordance with the actual history and are uncited, but presented as facts. The general tone and disparaging remarks are an insult to the many owners and enthusiasts of this model.

The articles should not be a forum for subjective opinion, and definitely should not appear in the main body of the article where it is entirely inappropriate.

I shall continue to undo any attempt to enter subjective comments into this article.

Davidjohnaustin (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in the Nash Metropolitan article. Please see WP:Describing points of view: An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view [and What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)]

At present, all the points of view noted and referenced in the "Collectibility" section of the article accord with this guideline and also with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You might care to expand the section by adding and referencing other authoritative points of view? Thank you! — Writegeist (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article makes statements such as "the car failed so badly that in 1957 Austin began to offload it in Britain". This is absolutely incorrect. Austin specifically applied for a license from American Motors in October 1956 to sell the Metropolitan in the UK and other countries not serviced by American Motors. Sales in the US were extremely healthy in 1957 and 12,226 were sold there (one of their best years for sales), so the author does not know what he is talking about. Austin sales were admittedly not huge, but over 9,000 were sold between 1957 and 1961.

He also quotes :-

"dangerous at anything higher than perambulator speed".

This is an extremely irresponsible statement, and does not fit into the catagory of fair comment. It implies that all current owners are driving "death-traps" are are a danger to themselves and other road-users. This is blantantly unfair. Testers at the time of the cars' release remarked on its very fine handling qualities, for example Road Test magazine of 1954 wrote :-

"..on roadability and responsive handling, the Met shines. It also offers easy maintenance and downright stinginess when it comes to gasoline consumption. Also, it's literally a brute for punishment. On several occasions I took familiar corners at speeds half again what I would dare to use in some cars of twice the weight-proof that proper weight distribution, low center of gravity and well engineered suspension have more to do with roadability than massiveness, weight and long wheelbases. Admittedly, the short wheelbased Met does pitch moderately on very rough roads, but the sensitivity and ease of steering make driving a pleasure"

Does this sound a car dangerous at anything higher than perambulator speed, I think not.

Davidjohnaustin (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep making unwarranted deletions from this article. The author whose opinions you have twice excised uses hyperbole to make a point. This is common among intelligent experts and commentators who have a lively mind, a sense of humour, and an inclination to write entertainingly. Nerad's contention that the car qualifies as one of the greatest cars of all time is also, clearly, hyperbole; but nonetheless legitimate comment backed by his view that the car is "cuddly" etc. Sewell is simply saying, in his idiosyncratically facetious way, that the car is deficient in certain respects. (E.g. the "perambulator" remark, which simply illustrates his conclusion that the car is unsafe--presumably in today's road and traffic conditions--at anything above a slow speed.) The fact that these areas of the car's performance etc. were not regarded as deficient by certain journalists, such as the one you cite, at the time of the car's manufacture is something that you may wish to add to the article, but it does not invalidate the opinions of a well-known present-day collector-car journalist. You might also care to point out error(s) in his article. Thank you! — Writegeist (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Writegeist,

I don't have a problem with people expressing their point of view be it positive or negative, but I believe it should present a balanced view, and quote verifiable sources to back up their opinions. This author does not quote any references, and makes grossly inaccurate and inflammatory statements with no foundation in fact. I do not understand how you can say the writer is an "intelligent expert and commentator" when he obviously has no grasp of the known facts about the Metropolitan. I have pointed out his gross errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.103.28 (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you quoted from Wikipedia "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy" I can find nothing in the Sewell article that qualifies as "clearly, accurately and fairly describing all the major verifiable points of view". The article is riddled with inaccuracies, quoting no references, so it cannot be verified, and does not deal fairly with subject at hand.

He is obviously biased against the Metropolitan, and uses falsehoods, purporting to be accurate, to launch into a tirade against the car. This is clearly does not come under the heading of "fairly" reporting a point of view. I have chosen not to remove the article, but present rebutting comments. If you chose to remove these comments, then you would also be guilty of the same "vandalism" that you are accusing me of.

I do not know of your connection with the Metropolitan, but I have been associated with the history of this model for over 50 years, and have contributed much FACTUAL (verifiable) material to the original article. Unless you can indicate a similar intimate knowledge of the Metropolitan, I would politely ask you to refrain from further interference in this subject.

Davidjohnaustin (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have edited the section to accommodate your views, wishes and concerns where possible, including removal of an apparent error of fact. In other respects (e.g. editorializing; speculation, etc.) I was unable to, and had to remove your boldface personal opinions etc. The following articles may make this easier to understand:

Wikipedia:How to edit a page

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)/Boldface

If you can find one or more authoritative published sources for the views of "enthusiasts", insofar as they bear on the car’s collectibility or otherwise, you might care to include them in the Collectibility section. As you will see I found one and added it.

In light of your claim to expertise re. the Metropolitan you might be interested in the following, with a view to citing your own learned contributions to the subject in whatever media, which I imagine could only improve the Metropolitan article:

Wikipedia:No original research/Citing oneself: If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

Incidentally I think you will find that you have erroneously interpreted the word "article" in Wikipedia's An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy. In that context it means Wikipedia articles. Clearly, as I think you may agree when you reflect on it, to require a single attributed source--even the broad-ranging Mr. Sewell--to include "all the major, verifiable points of view" about the subject of a WP article would be somewhat, er, limiting. Not to say absurd.

Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Writegeist

I have removed the whole Collectivity section, as I believe the whole issue of collectivity is one of personal preference and subjective opinion. A car I like will not necessarily appeal to another person. To my mind Wikipedia, is a place for people to come to get FACTS on a subject. It should not be a Forum for expressing different viewpoints. CZmarlin, I think was correct in removing the section for this reason.

In the interests of harmony, I believe it is appropriate to take this action, and I would urge you to respect this. I don't want this whole thing to descend into a battle of egos, with each one removing & undo-ing ad nauseum. This benefits no-one, least of all people who genuinely are seeking factual and objective information on this car.

Davidjohnaustin (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous WP old-car articles cover questions of collectibility. Some do so in dedicated sections headed "Collectibility" or "Today" or some such; others in sections that deal primarily with other aspects. Information that bears on collectibility has a perfectly legitimate place in Wikipedia. And anyway you do not have the right to make unilateral decisions as to what does and what doesn’t merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

The section that you have yet again removed contains information from properly researched sources. The sources themselves are well-known professional journalists. Their specialties include the coverage of what are now called "classic" and "collector" cars. One of them also runs a well-known old car museum. The media from which their articles are sourced are highly respectable newspapers and special-interest magazines. These attributed views, and hence the section they comprise, have a valid place in the Mertropolitan article.

You repeatedly disrupt this article by taking the same action – removing the bit you don’t like. Each time it is reinstated, you delete it again and present a fresh raft of "justification(s)" that are mainly expressions of your subjective opinions. When you quote Wikipedia guidelines you tend to misinterpret them. (As seen above.)

Now, reviving one of your earlier objections ("I shall continue to undo any attempt to enter subjective comments into this article"), and regardless of the fact that it has already been answered, you attempt to justify yet another deletion, this time of the entire section, with: "I believe the whole issue of collectivity is one of personal preference and subjective opinion."

This is not a valid reason for exclusion from Wikipedia. May I refer you once again to Wikipedia:describing points of view: "What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view [and] What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)" Please note therefore that opinions, such as those of auto journalists writing about old cars, are welcome in Wikipedia when accurately attributed and represented – e.g. the journalists' opinions in the section you happen to dislike. Please note also that Wikipedia is happily full of informative attributed opinions (i.e. POVs). The fact that you personally disagree with one or more of them is not a valid reason for them to be excluded; neither does it give you licence to remove them.

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. . . . The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints."

See also Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'."

As to your earlier attempt at intimidating me—"I have been associated with the history of this model for over 50 years...Unless you can indicate a similar intimate knowledge of the Metropolitan...refrain from further interference in this subject"—may I draw your attention to Wikipedia:About: "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge... no individual controls any specific article."

The inclusion of varying points of view, properly attributed and presented (as explained above), is not a matter for dispute. Inclusion of varying points of view is in fact central to WP policy, and the case for their inclusion in the Collectibility section is clearly overwhelming. Therefore I have reinstated it.

As you will see on the article’s talk page, I wonder if some of the information in the Collectibility section should be moved to (an)other section(s) of the article. You might care to contribute your thoughts there.

I have asked that someone copy this discussion onto the article's talk page.

Sorry I accidentally misspelled your name in an edit summary.

Cheerio! Writegeist (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Writegeist

Obviously you are on some sort of Crusade regarding this subject, and I basically can't be bothered to respond, as the whole thing is becoming excessively childish (tit for tat).

I take exception to your comment that I tried to intimidate you. This is a ridiculous suggestion. I was merely asking what is your knowledge relating to the Metropolitan.

Also I do not think I deserve to be called prejudiced. In all my contributions to the Metropolitan article, I have only added FACTUAL information, and have never added anything that could be considered of a subjective nature. I wanted to keep the whole article factual in nature, and present the 'Neutral Point of View' that Wikipedia strives for. I did not ,for instance, add the section on collectability. I only objected to the Brian Sewell article because it contained many factual errors, and was writen in what I considered a very vitriolic tone. I have no objection to negative comments if they are backed up by facts, and are of a considered nature, and thus are in keeping with the Wikipedia ethos.

I think you should study CZmarlin's reasons for removing the whole section of Brian Sewell's quotes from the article. As he said, most of Brian Sewell's comments regarding the awful handling of the Metropolitan was based on his limited experience as stated in the article thus :-

..... Admittedly, the decrepit survivor in my hands a month or two ago was in far from concourse condition – it rattled, it was rusty, its doors sagged deeply on their hinges – but this alone cannot account for the wallowing, lurching and constant understeer, and the sense that the back end is about to break away and overtake the front......

Thus Brian Sewell admits the car was in very bad condition, and therefore his comments cannot be given much credence, and in no way reflects the handling of a properly restored and well maintained vehicle. You chose to ignore this cogent argument presented by CZmarlin, who is an experienced contributor to Wikipedia.

Have a Good Day. Davidjohnaustin (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "crusade." Just a desire to see a wide spectrum of views fairly represented on Wikipedia, which is at odds with your own desire to suppress the ones you disagree with or disapprove of.

I shall simply take your claim that you were "merely asking what is your knowledge relating to the Metropolitan" and leave it at that, as the rest of your response is of much the same standard of debate: your statement is, to put it politely, a disingenuous interpretation of your "Unless you can indicate a similar intimate knowledge of the Metropolitan, I would politely ask you to refrain from further interference in this subject." I repeat, as you may have overlooked it the first time, "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge... no individual controls any specific article."

If you read the article's Talk page you will see that, contrary to your accusation that I "chose to ignore" CZmarlin's "cogent" argument, I answered it fully there.

No need to apologize.

Cheerio then — Writegeist (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were referring to one of CZm’s other cogent arguments when it seems that in fact you meant his totally wrong-headed cogent argument that Mr. Sewell “admits (in the quoted article) that his experience with the subject was based on ‘the decrepit survivor in my hands a month or two ago’.”

The fact is, Mr. Sewell clearly does NOT say that his article is based on that particular decrepit survivor. In fact he only mentions the decrepit survivor in the context of its woeful dynamic inadequacies, remarking that its decrepitude could not be wholly to blame for them. In the main, his article is about "the Metropolitan" as a model, in general, i.e. its generic attributes. For all we know his views may have been formed by experience long ago of a less decrepit, or perhaps even a brand spanking new example of the Metropolitan. Or from several examples in varying states of brand spanking newness and/or decrepitude. He simply doesn’t say.

Please note also that, anticipating your concerns about the decrepit survivor (which are groundless as I have just explained), I was at pains to omit from the Wikipedia text the entire array of Mr. Sewell’s viewpoints about the decrepit survivor in question, i.e. the "wayward behaviour of the steering and suspension", the "wallowing, lurching and constant understeer," "the sense that the back end is about to break away and overtake the front" (so he also drove it in the wet then!), the way the car "floundered round corners" and the difficulty of overtaking trucks. This also meant omission of reference to the decrepit survivor itself. (Incidentally all of Mr. Sewell’s information is corroborated by other notable experts who have driven Metropolitans utterly devoid of decrepitude, so I shall add and attribute their viewpoints, as well as some additional complimentary examples I have found, as soon as I can take time off from responding to your objections to Mr. Sewell etc.)

I included Mr. Sewell’s remarks about the decrepit survivor’s body restricting the front wheels, the consequent difficulties parking, and the insensitivity and slackness of the steering, as it’s all generic Metropolitan stuff - i.e. not peculiar to the decrepit survivor.

In short, the decrepitude of the survivor is immaterial to the observations and viewpoints contained in the selected Sewell quotes.

I hope this alleviates your concerns. And of course CZm’s if he reads this.

G'day mate! — Writegeist (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Series III.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Series III.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Series IIIa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Series IIIa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Metropolitan photo

Hello, I found that photo while poking around the Flickr Commons, as in the link for the photo. It's from the Library of Virginia collection... I have no connection to the Library or the Nash dealership. It was just a lucky find! Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]