Talk:Renault/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dear IP

Please read WP:BRD. Also, when you fold all of your edits together, there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish. You are becoming nearly impossible to work with, always assuming bad will on everyone else's part, such as in this very unpleasant edit summary: Official and neutral ECOTY website sources to replace the denigrating or broken links"sources"added and not controlled by the"patrols". I'm not sure exactly what it means, but I feel that you are not being pleasant. Please consider communicating in a more productive fashion, and perhaps edit some articles on something else to lower your adrenaline.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know how you interpret my sentence, the facts :

• I added some reliable sources where there were "citation needed", so my changes were relevant and even ASKED and so it is not good to erase all these sources.
• Some links do not show what they are expected to, for example this link send to Chevrolet Corvet ! http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1211_car_of_the_year_winners/photo_32.html not to the announced Renault Alliance, so it is a "spam" link. If this link was controlled, then I guess that one would have corrected it, as it would be a duty. Other wrong links that I corrected : http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/coty/ and commercial link http://www.autotrader.co.uk/advice/2010/07/buying/test-driving-a-car These links should not have been accepted by the "patrols", should they ? When I add some relevant and neutral links from the official ECOTY website, they are erased, and these wrong links are accepted. It is a normal behaviour ?
• Please, target your changes, and analyse what would be wrong, because you erased everything without proving that there was anything wrong to erase, on the contrary, you erase some relevant changes that corrected some wrong links, you erased some informations and sources asked by Urbanoc about the gear patent, etc.

Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm trying to mediate here. Mr.choppers, did everything need to be reverted? I'd understand if the IP made a ton of changes with one edit, but it was across a number of smaller edits. Was there anything salvagable in the edits, like sourcing the CN tags? Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably, but when I tried to undo the original edit it was not possible due to intermediate edits. If IP had followed WP:BRD then I wouldn't be faced with re-reverting his edit and thus also throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Apologies, but I was left with no choice except to relinquish ownership of Renault to the IP. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Mr.choppers, but now that we're at D, can you explain which ones you oppose, and why, and which ones you don't oppose, so they can be reinstated? I understand this IP has been difficult in the past, and it took us longer to get to these discussions than it should have, but now that we are here, and the IP is discussing things more on a content level than an accusatory level, it is your guy's turn. Discussion is a two way street. Urbanoc, I'd like to hear your thoughts as well, as you've also reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Thank you Serge. M.Choppers wrote : "there is really no way for me to delete the disputable material without also reverting whatever useful things you have managed to accomplish.". FALSE, there is a way to revert ONLY this part, and not the 9 other changed versions, as it was ONLY here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=650430686&oldid=650398033 But there is no relevant reason to reverse this one either anyway... Anyway, I mentioned later that the "homeland" brands were before Renault, what is not needed as I wrote that Renault is 3rd, and it is an article about Renault, not the "homeland" brands in UK. Notice that Germans thinks that Ford and Opel are German, British think that Ford and Opel-Vauxhall are British, American people think that Ford and Opel are American, so mentioning these 2 brands in another company article just brings confusion and as there is absolutely nothing to do with an eventual business connection between Renault and those brands there, then this WP over-linking is not justified at all. Happy to have clarified your mind. You're welcome ! You erased many sources that I added to answer to Urbanoc's challenges "citation needed", before he could erase many parts of the Renault article, that becomes poorer and poorer by the way, because of that. So keeping these sources is very important, as you know, as they answer to his requests. You're welcome ! Cheers. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Renault article is getting worse, and we have 83.157.24.224 to thank for that. This user's lack of a neutral point of view, failure to understand Wikipedia guidelines, incivility, general obnoxiousness, and poor language skills have all led to a significant degradation in the quality of the article. More significantly, perhaps, is the fact that they have created an unpleasant atmosphere which makes me, for one, want to avoid contact. All of this is not conducive to building a better encyclopedia. The user is not here. Vrac (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, Vrac, and I find it hard that all three of you established users are all wrong about this. However, I'd just like a little more clarification of your guy's specific stances to specific edits. I understand that the IP has been hostile in the past, but upon my instruction, his discussions have become more focused on the content end, so we need to address it a little better now. I'm trying to mediate, but I can only do so from a Wikipedia-policy standpoint - I have very little prior knowledge of the automotive world. However, I do seem to be the only Admin interested in trying to fix this, so I think the easiest way is to have you, Urbanoc, and Mr.choppers define, in a little more detail, which edits are okay and not okay, and why. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sergecross73, the version is again one more fitted to IP's tastes, because he reverted me as well. I have problems with most of the edits he made, if not all, but, talking about the reversion in discussion, there were only two or three things without any problems. As Mr.choppers says, it was pretty difficult to save something and "focus" changes as IP suggested. Problems I see are:

a) He used not-so-good tertiary and primary sources in an "innovations history" section added by him. All the section seems to be a problematic advertising-aimed one, and needs a far better sourcing.

b) He added text frankly incomprehensible.

c) He added the Renault Kadjar in the current models section. The Renault Kadjar is still not for sale, therefore isn't a current model, is an upcoming model. See here.

d) The Renaults Trafic and Master are also developed by General Motors (Opel) not only by Renault. It's a joint venture.

e) He removed mentions to other marques and product features in the "Renault in the UK" section. The mentions were to put into context Renault in such market, not to pursue a Renault's defamation. He is doing that in a lot of articles, as he thinks to mention rivals is a way of attacking French companies...

As Vrac says, it's difficult to point out only one problem. In my opinion, all the IP edits can be classified as tendentious editing. Regards --Urbanoc (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Now he is adding again a lot of "car awards" into the article, when the general consensus in the RfC that discussed the Awards section was to significantly reduce it to a few key awards or removing it entirely. He isn't accepting basic consensus in the article and needs to open another RfC or seek third-party opinions if he thinks the current consensus is wrong. I reverted that because it not even deserves a discussion as it's simply disruptive editing and nothing more. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from content issues, here are a few examples of unpleasant behavior from the more recent round of tendentious editing:

• this, an "I'm a PhD so I know better" attitude.
• Calling existing content "totally ignorant".
• Editorializing text copied from sources into ref tag (copyrightvio?) by bolding here.
• Ongoing persecution complex that Renault is not being treated fairly here. See the top of this thread for references to "patrols", apparently a reference to Urbanoc, Warren Whyte, Mr. Choppers, and myself who the user believes are all Volkswagen fanatics out to get Renault. (I've never edited VW articles by the way).

The POV pushing should be fairly obvious. Anything less than a glowing assessment of Renault is met by this user with hostility and accusations of a cabal. Note that this user engages in the exact same behavior on the French-language wiki. The user has built up a significant track record at this point, maybe I'm getting oversensitive at this point but it's understandable why. Vrac (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Urbanoc, I've protected the page to discourage further reverting. Vrac, I understand, and I've witnessed, and admonished the IP, for most of these things already. My concern is that the IP appears to be trying to argue more along the lines of content and sources now, but isn't getting any specific response to these questions. For example, he appeared to add sources to replace some Citation Needed tags, which was reverted along with the rest of his edits. Was there anything salvageable in those edits? Or were even those sources so out of line that a CN tag is actually better? I really don't know, which is why I'm asking. If it is, then fine, but explain. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I have been deliberately staying out of the content issues on this. I don't think they are the issue, there are always content disputes, the problem arises when someone doesn't play well with others and the disputes cannot be resolved in a reasonable and civil manner. Such has been the case with this user from the beginning and I'm not seeing a change. Just yesterday they came out with the "I'm a PhD" attitude again, and their response below starts off with "arbitrary accusations" and "false accusations". If they don't understand or cannot admit to what is wrong with their behavior these problems aren't going to go away. Vrac (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

-> Hello. Many arbitrary accusations and personal interpretations with no proofs, but no problem, because I am good faith, I only cite some reliable facts and statistics, so I am not afraid by false accusations. To answer to your many accusations, here are my factual answers :

• First I added many reliable sources where Urbanoc added "citation needed". Nobody proved that all of them could be erased, and actually, on the contrary all of them are good, and yet they have been blindly erased. It is not normal.
• I removed some broken links and a commercial link to second hand cars website, and replaced them by the official links to the ECOTY website with the complete results, so no relevant reason to erase these links, and to accuse me so badly. Example of the reliable links that I added http://www.caroftheyear.org/previous-winners/2006_1/coty
• Kadjar has been officially shown to the press at the beginning of February 2015 in Paris, the video is visible on the Internet and it has been officially shown at the Geneva Automobile show at the beginning of March 2015, look http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/renault-kadjar-at-2015-geneva-motor-show/video/gm-5385648 In addition, several people have uploaded some photos of the Kadjar on WP, that anyone can see at the Geneva show. Besides, some people uploaded some photos of the Kadjar that is already running with some standard registration numbers in the French streets http://reporter.autoplus.fr/2015/02/14/renault-kadjar-2/ The Kadjar will be commercialized gradually in Europe from April, in France. So, no relevant reason to continue to block the input about the Kadjar and to continue to be "disruptive" about this. Thank you. More information here http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/kadjar/90636/new-renault-kadjar-suv-drops-into-geneva-2015-full-specs The Alfa Romeo Giulia has never been shown and yet it has an article for a long time on WP, but the Renault Kadjar that is officially launched can't be cited ? It is an unequal treatment.
• I added a source by a Professor, published at Oxford university press, explaining that "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company", what is clear about his actions. This third party source is perfectly reliable. Louis Schweitzer is taken as an example in University courses all over the world, as a man who could transform a national company (carmaker) into a worldwide group. The fact that, he could not convince Volvo to be bought by Renault is also a part of this difficult process for example. Now, Volvo is owned by a Chinese company.
• I added 2 car awards in the UK section, as precisely it is a measure of how some reliable professionals really assess the brands in the UK. As they name the new models, Ford and Opel also get the same kind of awards sometimes, and nobody think that it is promotional to add then in their article, so why "interpreting" differently this for Renault ? Equal treatment of companies, please.
• I will answer more later, but all these points can be admitted already, to stop to be "disruptive" about any change about Renault, and even more about the asked source by "citation needed" that I filed relevantly. I wish you a nice evening or day. You're welcome ! 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add anymore until we've discussed the ones you've addressed above. If you take on too much at once, the whole thing will be too overwhelming and it will go unaddressed as a whole, like has happened countless times before... Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses to IP and Sergecross73: I will be focussing in the last two major revisions of the IP. Other revisions must be discussed separately, as there's a lot of material. Also, please note that these are my concerns, I can't say these cover adequately concerns from other editors:

This source in the "Innovations" section: While I agree is fairly better that other sources the IP presented (at least is something from a publishing house and has editorial overseeing), I'm not so sure it's a good source to prove the point being addressed. It's a tertiary source and is a bio of one of the company founders, Louis Renault. I'm not sure the "innovation" is from the company or exclusively from L. Renault (in fact, the IP editor mentions L. Renault, not the company). L. Renault produced cars even before the Renault company came to existence, maybe the info should be in his article. However, I agree the source can be used if the rest of the editors think is OK. Also, the wording is a biased one: even if a source exists, the tone must be kept on WP:NPOV. The IP editor wrote "Louis Renault invented a the revolutionary direct drive gear," the source he presented doesn't directly support such a bold claim, as it says: "comportait un chassis à tubes et une transmission par arbre et différentiel, ce qui constituait une première nouveauté à l'époque de la transmission par chaîne à rouleaux, système qui fut répandu et même utilisé dans les camions. Cette voiture comportait également une boîte de vitesses à trois rapports et une marche arrière, la troisième vitesse constituant une prise directe" or, roughly in English, "featured a tube frame and a transmission shaft and differential, which was a novelty at a time of tansmissions by roller chain system. It became widespread and was even used in trucks. The car also included a three-speed manual transmission with reverse gear, the third gear being a direct drive." The source doesn't say the direct drive was "revolutionary" but it do says that was one the firsts. Maybe a more neutral text could be: "Louis Renault introduced an early direct drive gear", or something like that. The patent registers should be deleted at once, as they don't establish relevance. I think it would be better to move any salvageable material from the section into other sections, because biased titles as "Innovation history" and "Awards" are so complex as "Criticism" and "Controversies": they are a catch-all for POV-pushing, and need careful editing by really good editors with a good writing level, as the bias is difficult to avoid.

Sources added by IP in the Motorsport section: They are almost all low quality, but they seem OK to prove results (some of this were citation needed"). However, the tone used is a little biased and focussed in awards (something that seems a way to avoid the result of previous RfC on awards sections) and recent achievements. Besides, the section goes into too much detail, as there is a Renault Sport article. Maybe some material can be moved there. Another problem is that the new text in this section is difficult to understand. In brief, too much problems with the changes in this section and the rest of the sections through IP's big edit for not reverting to save barely-acceptable references.

About Kadjar: All the points made for the IP ignore my concern: the Kadjar isn't a current model even if the company presented it. Per past consensus, the "current" section is for models the company actually sells, not for prototypes or future cars. There is a related list linked from this article aimed to include all, past, present and future (and prototypes) cars from Renault. The car will not be on sale until mid-year (some sources, as the IP remarked, says April, but we are still in March), so mentioning it on a current car list seem a way of promotion. The fourth-generation Mégane is already rolling in France under camouflage, according to some sources, but it wouldn't have sense to include as a current car the "Mégane IV."

About references in the "Awards" section: Marginally better as the IP replaced Spanish sources with similar English ones for the "Car of the Year" web. The Autotrader link was also correctly removed by him as it is now a dead link that redirects to an unrelated topic. However, I think the "The Telegraph" link he removed is better than the one he used as a replacement, as it is something from a third-party publisher not involved with neither Renault nor Car of the Year, which helps to establish relevance.

"Renault in the UK" section: I already say my problems with the changes in this section previously: the IP removed mentions to other marques and product features in the "Renault in the UK" section. The mentions were to put into context Renault in such market, not to pursue a Renault's defamation. He is doing that in a lot of articles, as he thinks to mention rivals is a way of attacking French companies. Also, he added awards to avoid the consensus on the awards section.

As a general note, I don't agree with the but other articles have this! claims of the IP editor. I never say all the other automotive articles were better. In fact, many of them have a lot of bias and bias-focussed sections. There is not a general consensus on the kind of things a car article should inherently have. However, there are other policies in Wikipedia, and we must edit following them.

And something not related to the said major revisions, but that I will anwser anyway:

About Schweitzer: There is no clear consensus to include him in the "key people" parametre in the infobox. I and Warren questioned his inclusion and the validity of the sources as we don't think they prove Schweitzer is more relevant that other former CEOs, even if we all think he is worth mentioning in the article. However, at least other editor besides the IP (Mr.choppers) thinks otherwise and in general approves the IP's sources for that particular point. Maybe a vote can decide it. I think we can start an RfC to seek commentaries of uninvolved editors. If different editors agree with his inclusion, I will accept it. As for the new "Volvo was wrong" proof for Schweitzer uniqueness, only one part from the then-Volvo company (the car division, or Volvo Cars) is owned by the Chinese, the heavy vehicles part (AB Volvo) is Swedish-owned and its financial reports generally show net results almost as good as Renault (or even better if we exclude Nissan from the equation). --Urbanoc (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a somewhat funny answer since Renault trucks was merged with Volvo AB, so both Volvo Cars and Volvo AB had to internationalize. But that's completely besides the point. It's quite clear that mr. Schweitzer started the transformation of Renault from a (state owned) national car maker to an international car group. I'm not a Wikipedia expert but I am a car enthusiast. I recommend adding mr. Schweitzer to the list of key people but why is Louis Renault not added since he gave his name to the company? --Steven vc (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Schweitzer is actually listed as a key person in the infobox. It might be debatable but it's not like we are dealing with an excessively long list of people, there are only two, so I think it is fair that he stays. @Urbanoc: do you mind if I remove the "Dubious" tag? It's been there for a while now. As for Louis Renault, he is listed as a founder of the company so I don't think he is getting shortchanged. Vrac (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To Steven vc. How is it funny? To say Renault's commmercial vehicles operations made "international" to Volvo is a bold claim. The former Renault properties surely helped Volvo to strengthen its position in North America (through Mack) and indirectly in Japan (through Nissan's heavy vehicles unit), but Volvo's heavy commercial vehicles division was already more international (and profitable) than Renault's. Besides, that's not the point addressed in my comment. The IP stated Volvo made a mistake when didn't accept a full merger with Renault as Schweitzer wished, but that is an speculation contradicted by the facts. The financial results of Volvo are good compared with those of Renault, even considering Renault has a big help from its "partner" Nissan in the balance sheets. Better leave the "what ifs" out in order to support the Schweitzer relevance.

To Vrac. Personally, I'm still not convinced, but there's seems to be a consensus to include him (a new editor supports the inclusion and other two, the IP and Mr.choppers also agreed), so I will accept to remove the tagging. However, I feel that if we are including Schweitzer we also must include Lefaucheux and Besse, as they were as least as relevant. --Urbanoc (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As per Vrac and Urbanoc. Many of the IP's source improvements were not problematic, but the Kadjar is obviously not on sale yet. The IP himself talks repeatedly about "pre-series vehicles having been seen", etc. This oughtn't even have to be mentioned, the Kadjar will go on the page in a month or two, no hurry. His sources on Schweitzer have convinced me that it's worth discussing - does anyone have any suggestions for other ex-CEOs that would be more relevant?

As for the portion on Renault in the UK, the text as I prefer it mentions that the Mégane looked rather different from the competition and many analysts predicted this would be a problem for sales in the UK. It wasn't, and somewhat surprisingly (due to the car's obvious qualities, on ewould presume) it reached a very successful fourth place in the statistics. Renault even managed a third in sales overall, behind only the two domestic brands Ford and Vauxhall. The text thus eulogizes Renault's success in the UK at the time. The IP objects to this portion only from an inability to read it properly, as is evidenced by his edit summary and others.

=>Hello, false accusation, I read properly. But ironical "compliment" or not, the raw and neutral figures, with no opinion is what is the best. That is why this ironical "compliment" has to be erased. RAW NUMBERS, NO OPINION ! Saying "quirky" is "POV", so WP asks to remove that. Thank you and have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Um, in the comment I link to above you also write "The 4th most sold is a good result out of more than 20 C-segment vahicles, so false "opinion" too" - the sentence that you revert specifically mentions that 4th place is a strong result, thus proving that you are misreading the entire section. There is no irony whatsoever in this text, trust me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Third party sources are preferred when available, something I think IP has missed entirely. Awards sections ought to be trimmed everywhere, and I have done so elsewhere too. Lastly, I welcome the effort by the IP to begin communicating more constructively but I have to admit that I feel that the language barrier may be enough to preclude them from useful work in English. Oh, and who are the "patrols"?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, the exact source that the IP inserted for the Alliance's COTY (I'd restore it myself, but it can wait), was originally placed at Renault Alliance by me. Also, would I sit around and study ancient issues of Belgian motoring magazines on the Renault 9 and 11 if I hated Renault?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=>Hello, as I proved before, the link that you "added" sends to the Chevrolet Corvet, not to the announced Renault Alliance ! And thus people assess that it is a crafty "spam" link to promote GM/Chevrolet in another company article and this source is wrong. Check the link that you "added" [1] here [2] Thank you to admit that. I had to correct this "spam" link in both Renault and Renault Alliance articles. We have studied hundreds of thousands changes on WP, and for example, here you claimed "no need to add motor show photo, too much glare" for the Renault Capture, so you replaced a beautiful photo by a black one that prevents to see the car in 3D. The photo for the VW Golf on its WP article is from a motor show and you did not changed that, for example. I tried to suggest that these actions might not be against Renault, but the neutral correlations calculation shows a strong systematic bias, so it could not assess that it is due to random. That is what mathematics proves neutrally. As to me, I proposed you to create a new article, so I want to believe sincerely that you can do better than this. Thank you and have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, the IP editor is now being contrary with the very even-handed Mr Choppers. I was surprised to see the allegation that Mr Choppers would spam an article, and of course the IP editor is throwing unfounded accusations around. Again. If the IP had bothered to look at the link he berates, and clicks 33 times to get to the right year, lo and behold there is the Renault... The direct link oddly defaults to the first image. Warren (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

False, I did not accuse M.Choppers. I mentioned what some other Professors noticed and some calculations that show strong correlations. As to me I asked if he would like to cooperate on a new article. So your interpretation is false, I did not accuse anybody. Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. So did another IP editor who just happened to use the same IP and write: "...crafty "spam" link to promote GM/Chevrolet in another company article and this source is wrong..."? Warren (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

About Mr.choppers edits: Please read WP:CARPIX, point 5 backs Mr.choppers image change. As a sidenote, point 7 answers to your habit of overflooding the main body of the articles with images. Stop citing edits from editors in other articles for complaining about them, especially ones that have nothing to do with the discussions here, this isn't the place to do it. The text in the "Renault in the UK" section has more consensus than yours. If you don't like it, you can open a RfC and try to change it. Mr.choppers isn't a spammer, and that's a pretty serious accusation, you shouldn't use it so lightly. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Here we go: as I knew I hadn't added a Corvette (blechhhh) link to this article, I just spent three minutes trying to figure out why the link that ends in "32" was now incorrect, and "33" worked. It's because in January 2015, the VW Golf (kind of funny, huh?) was added to the list and I guess that all the others got moved down one notch each. So, linkrot. IP, I expect an apology, here or on my talkpage, and don't ever accuse me of bias or spamming again unless you really have some supporting evidence. Until you do, I don't really feel any more need to help you out here. Next time you encounter an incorrect link, consider the possibility that it has changed (sadly, MT doesn't seem to allow for archiving) rather than just blasting off accusations.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Concluding remarks

Thank you, especially Urbanoc, for the detailed account of concerns, this was exactly what I was looking for. I just wanted to make sure that the IPs additions weren't being refused just because he has been difficult in the past.

I can't conclude who is right or wrong, all I can say is that there seems to be a clear, plausible, policy-related consensus against the IP's changes, and when there's no consensus to make changes, no changes are made. So the article should, at least for now, stay in its current state.

IP, you've got 2 options. One, you can try to persuade these editors into changing their mind. You guys have already discussed at length though, so I don't know how much longer I'd recommend that route. The other would be contacting relevant WP:WIKIPROJECTs or starting up an WP:RFC to see if you can get other editors involved, to persuade enough people to change the consensus into your favor. Either way, you need to do this yourself, as I'm getting tired of intervening all the time... Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The actual version includes a few of my changes, and these people don't want to keep the actual version, but to reverse all my relevant changes. To keep the actual version would a poor compromise, but a little better than reversing all, like they both ask.

• Some users arguments are "disruptive", like when accusing me that I would add a camouflage Megane input, what I did not, to prevent me to add a non-camouflage Kadjar that runs already on the French roads with official registration numbers, shown by some photos. This kind of diversions are disruptive. I have to justify of what I did not do, and it blocks a totally different and relevant input.
• The same, the Oxford University press source that I added proves definitely that "Renault's long-standing chairman and chief executive, Louis Schweitzer transformed Renault into a successful company", is clear about his actions. Yet, it is not taken into account, and a disruptive action for "vote" is asked. How the people who are not expert could vote relevantly ? How people who don't know the subject could better assess than the numerous University Professors that assessed the key role of Schweitzer in expending strongly Renault with Nissan, Dacia, Samsung Motors, AvtoVAZ and transforming it into a privatised company ?

Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've told you numerous times before, being a self-proclaimed "expert" has no special value here, especially considering anyone can edit anonymously or make all sorts of claims about their expertise without backing it up. As I tell lots of people: if your stance is so obviously and undeniably true, then you should have no problem convincing other people. Ask a WikiProject or start up an RFC. You still haven't tried either route. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I did not speak about me, but for example "Dr Harrison holds qualifications from London, Salford, and Leeds Universities" who wrote that Schweitzer had the key role in "transforming Renault into a successful company". I did not have time to answer to Urbanoc, so no conclusion can be done. For example, he wants that the Motorsport section to be erased a lot, yet The Ford main article has 2 pages of "Motorsport" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Motor_Company#Motorsport in addition to other Ford Racing, Ford World Rally Team, Ford GT Racing articles. Renault Motorsport has only 1/3 of that length of Ford and it would too long according to Urbanoc, Ford Motorsport is 3 times longer and it is not too long. It is an obvious bias and favouritism. It is an obvious difference of treatment, and no acceptable "fake vote" can establish some different rules among articles ! SAME RULES FOR ALL ARTICLES ! Else a lobby can vote some different rules, and so treat better a company than an other. Constitutions of democracies say : same laws for everybody, if laws are different for some categories of people, then it is not democracy, and such a vote has no value. This point is a key one, as you know, and that is why Urbanoc claims that he disagrees with it above, read ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read "other stuff exists". Please don't be so concerned on what other articles have - keep in mind that those articles could be in the wrong as well, and the argument may not lead to the reinstatement of the content in the Renault article, but rather the removal of the content at these other article's you reference. Anyways, you may discuss amongst Urbanoc as much as you wish, but I really feel my suggestion of getting more people involved is going to be more likely of a way for you to make any progress. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not remove material from the Motorsport section as I don't see a clear consensus to do it at this point, it was only a suggestion. Nevertheless, I think my concerns are valid. The Ford article's Motorsport section goes into too much detail as well (I don't like it, to be clear) but hasn't so much promotional material as awards for sportier car models and the tone isn't as much as biased as this one. Anyway, as Sergecross says, the content of other articles isn't per se an example of what can be included here. The same can be applied to the "Innovations history" section: I think you should stick the content to your sources and not using unsuported POV wording. Even more, I think all the section is a collection of unrelated info, with a borderline POV title.

About the Schweitzer issue: The vote was a suggestion from Mr.choppers that I agree with, but I made clear that all the involved parts should accept the result. As you imply you will not accept the result if it is contrary to your viewpoint, the vote hasn't much sense because it will not be resolving the content dispute. If you don't like discussing with me or if you think I'm wrong about this, that's a good reason to open a RfC or seek input from related WikiProjects. You can have different opinions from different editors, especially uninvolved parts. At least one established and non-biased editor, Mr.choppers, agrees with you, so I think you have very good reasons to do it, as there's a clear chance that you will get support. --Urbanoc (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

=> Hello Urbanoc, would you like to give me one week to answer to you ? I am very busy. During this time, you could read the MIT and Oxford UP sources about Schweitzer, what will enable you to change your mind and accept the input of Schweitzer as a key man in Renault's history, and you could find some other sources too. I have no personal interest to mention that Schweitzer had the most key role in Renault's history, so accusing me of POV is irrelevant. The 3 other professors who wrote about his key role, in the sources that I added, don't have a special "POV" either. Their reports are about the "managements methods", not about Schweitzer, but obviously they have to mention him as the man that invented this new management and managed to apply it in Renault and the other companies. The new "company culture" that he managed to settle, and his new way to make agreements with some other companies, instead of buying and erasing the other company management is what Ghosn still does now. This "respect" was new. Also, what they explain is that Schweitzer invented what one calls "agile methods" now !! He set a few key goals, and created a reactive and agile culture, strong involvement and some strong interactions between people. These 2 PhDs don't write the "agile methods" words (maybe they don't know them), yet what they write is exactly the definition of the agile methods ! Obviously, you will play on that to refuse that the words "agile methods" could be used to describe what Schweitzer settled, as the 2 PhD from MIT don't write them explicitly, and it is a pity to do that... For innovations, I added a source to explain the patent. The story of this gear is told in many articles. Thanks to it, the Renault car could go up on slopes better than any car, and this fact convinced its first buyers. This story is told in many sources. The purely mechanical gear, instead of the previous ones with some "string", made it much better and that is why the Renault car won some races early on real roads with slopes. The principle of "cogs only" was then developed as the best research "direction" by the Citroen engineers later and any other brands. So this innovation had an influence on the whole car industry. As Louis Renault invented it, then he is mentioned too. Obviously, one could "prefer" to not mention him, and no problem for me, only the invention can be mentioned, yet it is like for rock music, if you mention it, then you will have to mention Elvis Presley too, but there is probably a way to cite this key innovation, without citing Louis Renault, if you prefer that. For me, only the innovation is important. As for sections, my actions are clear : I don't ask to remove anything in Ford etc. articles, and I never do that. I am infinitely good faith, as you know inside of you. I just ask that the same sections, same lengths, same number of photos, so the same rules would be applied to all the articles of companies that are in the same domain. Obviously, the Ford, GM etc. awards should be cited in their articles too. It is an assessment. And there is no reason to cite a concurrent brand in a company article. So no reason to cite Renault in GM, and to cite GM etc. in Renault. Yet, you could argue that we should cite Renault in GM, because for example, you could say "GM had "x" ECOTY awards, behind the two best ranked brands : Fiat and Renault", but you don't want Renault to appear in GM, Ford, VW etc, so you don't ask that. I am neutral, and to give the raw number is enough. AND SAME RULES FOR ALL THE ARTICLES ! Thank you. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault kiwd

im from sri lanka,

I am going to buy a car , so I want to know about kiwd RXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.19.70 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Attention

Peace be upon you, Greetings, my name is Yousif Adnan from kurdistan Iraq. I am very intersted for Renault company and i have a Renault car type Fluence. I bought more than one car for this type and Renault fluence its very good car, But i would like to inform you that you have a defect For all Fluence cars. You have a defect in the brakes that all produce a sound when braking. So Please send this message to Renault company. Yousif Adnan My email: yousif.adnan@yahoo.com Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.163.137 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Article lead contains Odd Sentence

Towards the bottom of the articles lead section there is an oddly-placed sentence about a single investment in EV's back in 2011. Given the long history and vast scope of this multinational organization, I fail to see how: "Together Renault and Nissan invested €4 billion (US$5.16 billion) in eight electric vehicles over three to four years beginning in 2011." qualifies as information that would be in the lead. 206.113.15.122 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

206.113.15.122, yeah, you may have a point there. You can be bold and remove the sentence. If no-one reverts you, it implies an acceptance for the change. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)