Talk:Plymouth Valiant/Archive 1

POV (Chrysler by Chrysler)

Other model variants included a sedan, a station wagon, a pick-up ('Ute') and two long-wheelbase luxury models, a two-door hardtop coupé and a four-door. The latter was called, ridiculously, the ‘Chrysler by Chrysler’

Uh, I'm not exactly the expert on NPOV disputes, but is the adjective “ridiculously” seem POV to anyone? There's probably a good reason why it was called the “Chrysler by Chrysler”, and it seems POV to label it as ridiculous. Just a thought. — 72.29.73.231 14:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Added photo

Added a picture of my friend's 73 Valiant. I think it's appropriate. Lord Sephiroth03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pushbutton transmissions?

The early (1962?-1966?) automatic transmission Valiants had push-buttons instead of a lever shift. It is my understanding that only Valiants and Dodge Darts were built as 'push-button automatics'. If so, is this worth mentioning in the article? Mylorin 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost all automatic 1956-1964 Chrysler products used pushbutton shifters, including all automatic '60-'64 Valiants (and comparable Dodge Lancers and Darts). The only exceptions were certain sporty-model '64 B-bodies such as the Sport Fury, which got a floor-mounted lever-type shifter. All '65-up automatic Chrysler products had lever-type shifters, either on the floor or on the steering column. So, yes, it might be worth mentioning the pushbutton shifters, but they were not unique to Valiants. --Scheinwerfermann 19:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be worth adding if it can be documented. It's a pity that Mylorin seems to be gone. Neither the Chrysler article nor the Plymouth article has a reference to these semi-automatic transmissions. Plymouth is mentioned only in an expansion link as a discontinued marque in the Chrysler article. Regardless of where we put any mention, cross referencing will be important. I found the information about the "pushbutton automatic" transmissions fascinating. I'm glad I clicked the talk tab. Sophia Dare (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (Corrected typo.) Sophia Dare (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)(Materially revised suggestion to read as it does now.) Sophia Dare (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the present article does make several mentions of the pushbutton-controlled automatic transmission. Additional mention is needed; in fact, there's no information at all about the 1965 Valiant models, one of the most visible of which was the replacement of the pushbutton controls with conventional column or floor mounted shift levers. This lack of info on the '65s should be remedied; I'll make an effort to add relevant information and I'm sure other editors will, as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Plymouth is mentioned only in an expansion link as a discontinued marque in the Chrysler article"; there is a whole article dedicated entirely to Plymouth. Furthermore, there is some detailed discussion of the pushbutton controls in the article about the Torqueflite transmission itself. I'm also not certain what you mean by referring to "semi-automatic" transmissions. The transmissions we are presently discussing are fully automatic, not "semi-automatic". —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I had found the separate article on Plymouth. I had not seen the mention of Plymouth as a Chrysler marque in the main Chrysler article. It's there, so there's no need for any additional cross referencing. I'm afraid I mean that I must not have been tracking clearly when I did the research that led me to make the comment. I found everything you mentioned and more when I went back and looked. They're great articles, and I learned a lot. Thanks.Sophia Dare (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duelplymouth.jpg

Image:Duelplymouth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Martianvaliant.jpg

Image:Martianvaliant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Subsection titles

I have reinstated the previous subsection titles 1971-73 and 1974-76, without the "Except Australia and Other Foreign Markets" parentheticals. Not do the parentheticals make the subsection headings excessively long, but they are also confusingly inaccurate; US-body Valiants were exported and sold in many markets outside North America in the years described. While Chrysler Australia Ltd. were indeed producing Valiants very different from the US-based designs, this distinction is amply and adequately covered in the applicable text. --Scheinwerfermann 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Academia section

I have to take issue with the academia section. As it currently stands it doesn't really say anything other than Millikan used a 1969 Valiant as an example of an historical kind. She was not saying anything at all about Valiants and 1969 Trabant or any other production car could be substituted. Millikan also uses many other objects and institutions as examples like Romanesque churchs and the like, I see no reason to mention Millikan on those pages and I really see no reason to mention her here. If there is sources indicating the the Valiant is a common reference in philosphy or academia I would be fine with the section, but as it is, it is vague, amiguous and doesn't say anything. I am going to remove it if no one objects. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Feel free to remove it. -Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.46.17 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Kurt Cobain's connection to the Plymouth Valiant

Brother Dave Thompson, your repeated claim that Kurt Cobain "popularized the Valiant within his subculture" is unencyclopædic and, as far as we know, original research until you can provide a specific citation (page number at least, and preferably a direct quote) to document your assertion. Just linking to a book about Cobain does not constitute adequate support for the claim. It appears some individuals are upset that the article's "Valiant in Popular Culture" subsection was removed in accordance with WP:trivia. Perhaps you are such an individual. If that is the case, and you feel it is important to include the Cobain assertion, the proper course of action is to make it encyclopædic by dint of proper support. Otherwise it just looks like a "back door" way to sneak elements of the deleted trivia section back into the article. --Scheinwerfermann 05:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim(which was made by me in the edit description for the revert, not by the original editor) is supported both by the reference link that was provided in the original image caption as well as a reference link that was included in the (since removed) "Valiant in Academia" section. I am reinserting the blurb, with the newly formatted reference links, to allow for comment by others and better wiki-witchery by the original author.

-Brother Dave Thompson 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The putative references you've provided are insufficient. There's still no page number or quote from the Cobain biography, and the PDF you link to cannot be verified. Please do not continue reinstating the disputed text unless relevant and verifiable references can be provided, and/or consensus is reached in this discussion. --Scheinwerfermann 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When I reinserted the info originally, I asked for discussion/comment on why the removal was needed. Repeatedly the info was removed without any sort of comment or any attempt to mollify my concerns, despite the fact that I had asked for such discussions multiple times. Forgive me if this seems rude, but something feels sour. -Brother Dave Thompson 19:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion of the trivia ("...in popular culture") section. Not here on the talk page, where perhaps there ought to have been, but certainly in the edit summaries. You seem particularly insistent on the Valiant-Cobain connection, though, and I'm curious why. --Scheinwerfermann 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest moving the Cobain/Valiant reference to the Kurt Cobain page? -Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.39.91 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would fit appropriately there if relevant and verifiable references are available to support it. It's not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia if no such relevant and verifiable references support it.--Scheinwerfermann 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My key reason for making the Kurt Cobain reference an issue is that I find the line between "trivia" and "culturally significant" in this article excessively fuzzy and aribitrary. Why is "A 1963 Plymouth Valiant, similar to the model once driven by Kurt Cobain"(original caption) removed, yet "Dennis Weaver drives a 1970 Plymouth Valiant in Steven Spielberg's Duel" and "This 1975 Plymouth Valiant serves as Dustin Hoffman's getaway car in Marathon Man" aren't? Combine this with the fact that terms like "lameass" and "eurofag" have been thrown around over what amounts to be a minor Wikipedia article, and I'm left doubting that the majority of these edits are the product of nothing but the noblest intentions.

I'm thinking it would be a good idea to create a "Cultural Impact" section within this article containing a "See whatever" link to a separate article (Valiant in Popular Culture?) containing info on how the cultural aspects of the car. The technical/historical data remains here, the sociological/economic data goes there, the article length doesn't grow exponentially, the quibbling and edit wars over what goes where is significantly reduced, and my headache goes away.

-Brother Dave Thompson 08:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The line between "trivia" and "cultural significance" is fuzzy and rather arbitrary in general, not just in this article. Nevertheless, the difference between the Cobain caption and the other two you mention is clear, present, and rather obvious: we still have no relevant and verifiable references to support the assertion that Cobain "popularized the Valiant in his subculture", while the other two images are screen grabs from actual movies, thus rendering the captions self-evident. There are other issues with these two images (i.e., the debate over whether this constitutes fair use), but they do not lack evidentiary support as does the Cobain assertion at this time. --Scheinwerfermann 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That was not my question. My question was why the original caption "A 1963 Plymouth Valiant, similar to the model once driven by Kurt Cobain"(Nobody's contesting this, I hope) not relevant, while the "Dennis Weaver drives a 1970 Plymouth Valiant in Steven Spielberg's Duel" and "This 1975 Plymouth Valiant serves as Dustin Hoffman's getaway car in Marathon Man" are? You're confusing my claim of Kurt Cobain's relevance with what the caption actually said. -Brother Dave Thompson 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If there were a specific reference to Cobain's driving a '63 Valiant, then there'd be less problem with A 1963 Plymouth Valiant, similar to the one driven by Kurt Cobain, though TTBOMK no such specific reference was provided. I agree with you that Dennis Weaver and Dustin Hoffman are irrelevant to this article. They were simply actors cast in particular movies, assigned to drive whatever car was specified by the writer. Your modified captions for the '71 and '75 Valiant photos are more appropriate than the originals (assuming these not-exactly-fair-use images remain, in the long run), and I've gone ahead and cleaned up the markup and text so that they work. --Scheinwerfermann 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

From a non-American POV, I would say not at all. Personally, other than that biography, I can't see any evidence how Cobain did "popularized the Valiant within his subculture" as did he raise the car's value, plus I have read books and magazine articles about the car without one single mention of Cobain. As for him owning the Valiant, I would have to say not as notable as Nick Mason owning the Ferrari 250 GTO for the fact he attends numbers of events and has lent his car to the press, leading to numerous press coverage in his name, which is enough to gain notability of car ownership. The other thing is anything about famous owners or a list as such is very likely to be prone to vandalism which is why they had to be purged. Willirennen 13:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My claim of relevance was not due to Mr. Cobain owning a Valiant, but him popularizing the valiant as claimed by Ruth Millikan on page 56 of "Historical Kinds and the Special Sciences"(Millikan, Ruth G. Historical Kinds and the "Special Sciences ISSN 1573-0883 (online), pg. 56)</ref>. -Brother Dave Thompson 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, I have yet to see any evidence including the biography (we're just going on somebody's say-so...there's no page number or quote) to support the claim that Cobain popularized or raised the value of the Valiant, in his subculture or any other. --Scheinwerfermann 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You where looking at the wrong reference link then. The one included included both the published paper as well as the exact page number where the author (Ruth Millikan) makes the claim of significance(Millikan, Ruth G. Historical Kinds and the "Special Sciences ISSN 1573-0883 (online), pg. 56). I am removing the movie references for now.-Brother Dave Thompson 18:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've went ahead and removed the movie related info. I'm going to try to clarify my two points here.

There where three images in this article that had captions that I thought where of questionable relation.

• an image caption stating both the model of car pictured, and that it was driven by a famous musician.
• an image caption stating both the model of car pictured, and that it was driven by a famous actor in a movie.
• an image caption stating both the model of car pictured, and that it was driven by a famous actor in movie.

The first caption was deemed as irrelevant by several people for various reasons, while the last two where pretty much left alone.

1. If the first caption is irrelevant, I don't see how the other two are not irrelevant also. All three are functionally the same("famous person drove a valiant".)

2. The first caption, the one referring to Kurt Cobain, is relevant for the reasons stated before and supported in the reference link that was provided(Millikan, Ruth G. Historical Kinds and the "Special Sciences ISSN 1573-0883 (online), pg. 56.) Since I seem to be the only one here who can access that link without a problem, I'm assuming that this point is dead in the water until I find another version of the paper publicly available. -Brother Dave Thompson 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Styling & photo captions

69.237.47.57, you're right that the Valiant's unique styling features are relevant to the article and should be discussed, but this should preferably be done in the article text rather than photo captions. Otherwise, the captions grow unwieldy and interrupt the flow of the article rather than aiding it. I have reverted the caption on the My Favorite Martian screenshot so that its format is in line with those of similar photos throughout the article (compare, for example, the '71 Valiant screenshot from Duel). I have also added a paragraph on the rear styling features you were trying to point out in the photo caption. Also, note that the cat's-eye tail lamps and the spare-tire deck lid were not one-year-only features. They were present on the '60 and '61 Valiants, and were deleted for the 1962 model year (which got round taillamps below the tailfins and a smooth deck lid). --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

69.237.47.57, please engage in discussion here on the talk page before reinserting what appears to be "pet" text of yours. The "round Plymouth nameplate" you keep asserting appeared on the deck lid for 1962 in fact did not. The base V100 model had no deck lid ornament, only a small script "Plymouth" nameplate in the lower right corner of the deck lid (US market; Canadian and other non-US market cars got a concave "By Chrysler" nameplate in this location). The high line V200 model had a large round ornamental emblem, with a block-letter "VALIANT" callout in the middle on a black horizontal field [1], matching the similar "VALIANT" nameplates on the front fenders of '62 V200s. The premium Signet model had a smaller round ornamental emblem with the red-and-blue stylised Valiant "V" logo in the middle [2]. There is also no compelling reason to refer to the 1962 tail lamps as "conventional" for their being round; their styling was unique to the 1962 Valiant. More to the point, the 1960-'61 cat's-eye tail lamps were arguably conventional, as well, for numerous other makes and models used cat's-eye shaped tail lamps — the 1959 Oldsmobile and the 1961 Mercury Comet, amongst others, aside from various non-Valiant Chrysler products. This kind of thing — like your previous incorrect assertion that the spare-tire deck lid stamping and the cat's-eye tail lamps were "one year only" features — suggests you're more enthusiastic than knowledgeable about these cars. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but guesses and recollections and opinions are not the same as facts. It's probably best to do a little checking before you add facts. Spend a few minutes doing a Google image search to check your recollection of badges, emblems, and nameplates, tail lamp shapes, and so forth. Remember, Wikipedia is a coöperative project, not a competitive one. Thanks for coöperating. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

69.237.47.57, once again I ask you to stop reinserting your "pet" text. You really need to engage in discussion here on the talk page, not just keep inserting incorrect text and making flighty comments about it in your edit summaries. You are not displaying good faith, and if you carry on behaving uncoöperatively like this, you will be reported to an administrator. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In your revised text you say that these styling features were deleted for the 1962 facelift. Currently, the sentence if left wanting in what replaced these features. Saying that they were simply deleted implies that nothing replaced it.

--MachoCallahan (talk)

I agree with you that there's certainly room for more detailed, factual discussion of the styling elements of the car. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then what's not factual about the round tail lamps and the large circular "Valiant" nameplate on the deck lid of the '62 Valiant? --MachoCallahan (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's styling info to gnaw on for a good while. --MachoCallahan (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use images

82.27.197.215 and MachoCallahan, please stop using the edit summary text to snipe at each other in your counterproductive edit war. This, the discussion page, is the right place to hash out the image usage issue. Are the "fair use" images in this article acceptable? It seems they are probably not, and here's why:

1. Point #5 here states that screen shots are acceptable for the purpose of critical commentary and discussion of the cinematic content. That's not what the images are used for in this article.
2. point #7 here states it would not be acceptable to use a Barry Bonds baseball card to illustrate an article about Barry Bonds. That's not exactly what is happening when we use a movie screen shot of a Valiant to illustrate the Valiant article, but it is very close. But whether or not it's close enough to be a match is kind of irrelevant, because...
3. ...point #1 here states that it might be OK to use a non-free image if no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Clearly, all of the movie screen grabs fail this test. There are lots of free pictures of Valiants around — all that's necessary is to get those who've taken them to post them or give permission to post them, so the first condition of using a non-free image ("no free equivalent is available") is obviously not met. Furthermore, there are still lots of Valiants around, and anybody can grab a camera and go shoot pictures of them. So, the second condition of using a non-free image ("no free equivalent could be created") is also not met.

Adding a nominal fair-use rationale such as this one (which — lookit there! — is identical to this one and this one... — doesn't address the problem, for it boils down to "This is fair use because I want to use this image".

The image from "Duel" might arguably qualify as fair-use, because of the car's central rather than incidental role in the film, but it would be a tenuous argument at best and a difficult case to make. If it is an argument somebody wishes to make, we will likely need to enlist some administrative help. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your games of conceit and pursuit of superfluous detail bore me. All you know about Valiants is what you read in a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.4.91 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you are bored, it'll still be necessary for you to follow the rules here on Wikipedia. Those rules include adherence to the fair-use policy, signing your comments on talk pages, and avoiding personal attacks. We will not have a pissing contest over what I know about Valiants and how I know it. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Magazine road tests

I've edited the text added by 66.51.146.59 to make it encyclopædic. We don't put block quotes from magazines into articles here. In that sense, Wikipedia is just like every other encyclopedia — you'll not find excerpts from magazine road tests in the Encyclopædia Britannica, the World Book, Compton's, or any other. But the information is certainly good and valuable, and should be referred to in the article. I'm hoping 66.51.146.59 (or somebody else) has easy access to the magazine and can add the specific information about this quote — the magazine title, date, volume, issue, and page number(s)) — which will turn it from an unsourced quote into a citation of value. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)