User talk:Sd4f

Chrysler Valiant Charger

Please discuss the changes you wish to make on the Charger talk page, but first take a look at a couple of policy pages to help understand my postions. WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. In genral it is not appropriate to revert a revert without explanation and discussion, see WP:BRD --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is sourced, read it! Im not familiar with wiki stuff, so im not sure how to put hyperlinks and stuff ( i hope you get this message, im not sure if it will relay to you), but then again this information isn't available on the internets anyway. Just because i started a section about the rumors doesn't mean that they dont belong there, just seems arrogant coming from someone whos never laid eyes on one of these cars in their lives. Ill tackle my view topically.

The cams: I referred to a magazine. EVIDENCE of the rumour of an incorrect cam being used in the motor. This came from a reputable source, who got it wrong. Im not sure on how to document the fact that people who have pulled the motor apart and measured the lobes have come to the conclusion that its not a 318 cam, but rather a 340 cam, i have one of these cars, and the cam, but if i mentioned my discovery, i would consider it biased. The chrysler service manual (a workshop book published by chrysler australia) provides details of the cam in the 340 engine, which is not the same as the 318 cam.

The detuning: Again, im not sure on how you can document the fact that the distributor had a different advance curve to the other motors, which limited the amount of spark advance. This is normally shown in a workshop manual with a graph of the advance curve, however chrysler didn't provide one, instead they just gave numbers. I should have mentioned where this came from, i can edit it. The fact that poor quality fuel and high compression cause air/fuel mixture to "ping" or detonate is an undisputed fact.

The 4 speed: No cars have been found to exist, one publication has a picture of a car, and says that it is, but it is no evidence, the car is unverified, has "disappeared". Archival lists from Mitsubishi Motors Australia (who bought Chrysler Australia Ltd.) state that there were 3 motors mated to a 4 speed gearbox, no data exists whether there are any cars as the list only deals with motors mated to gearbox production. I did mention that the lists have errors, this bears some weight, since all of this is unverified. These lists are unavailable to ordinary people and are not on the internets (think of the data entry of VIN, Paint codes, engine numbers, option codes for over half a million cars, and possibility of errors even when it was done the first time). Other data which was published in another magazine "Australian Muscle Cars" refers to other data which says the Chrysler had large stocks of one particular type of gearbox. I did not dwelve into this matter since it is unprovable since there is a possibility of another gearbox being used, however it is worth mentioning that this specific document outlined it.

the fact of the matter is this, the information is exactly that, it is not rumour spreading, it just provides details to what already exists (i hope you understand i have made a more than decent attempt at sourcing what i could), its not original work, just a conglomeration of information already available and also generally accepted by the clubs and enthusiasts, if it was wrong, one of them would have edited it, thats called peer review, which would mean other people knowledgeable on the subject (ie not you), you could just ask for a citation or evidence on specific comments, rather than deleting the whole thing, however this is objectional information, so no evidence is required, because there is nothing to prove, since it's facts about the rumours.

Thanks for responding. I see that you are genuinly interested in providing quality info on the Chrysler Valiant. First let me get the unpleasentness out of the way. Don't assume that I am arrogant or that have never seen a Valiant Charger. I will assume that you are basing this on the fact that I say I am from the US on my user page. If I were to create a new acount and falsely claim to have been chief of vehicle development for Chrysler Australia form 1969-1975 would I hold more sway? The point is don't use user pages as a basis for arguement. Moving on... the main problem with the material is that it is original research, specifically most of it is a violation of WP:SYN. We are not able to combine two sources of info to advance a third position. Which is more or less what is being done when you make as you put "a conglomeration of information." We could probably get away with a mentioning of the fact that the Australian verison was detuned, but is not really possible to discuss these rumors unless a reliable source has discussed them as well. As for the 4 speed section, it really is not needed. Not only is there no source provided that these rumors exis, but there really doesn't appear to be any data to show whether they are true or not. If a reliable source has discussed the mystery of the 4 speed (maybe the article in Australian Muscle Cars) than we can discuss it, but patching together info from archival lists and magazine picture will not pass in an encyclopedia. I hope this is clear, some of these policies can be confusing, let me know if I can help you with anything and lets not make this a hostile relationship, I would be happy to work with you on this page or any other in the future. Oh yeah one more thing, you mentioned that you hoped I would get this message, I watch your user talk page, so any changes made show up on my watchlist. Unless it gets lost in the shuffle, I will see and respond to anything that you write on this page. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not original research according to wikipedia, because they are published facts, im not reaching any conclusions, just writing facts published in sources which i can name.

For instance the 4 speed rumor is published in a source called "hey charger" and the AMC magazine article. The main problem is that there isn't any data which conclusively confirms or denies the existance of the build nor has substantial evidence of a car showing up either. However, it is worth mentioning what evidence does exist. Thats why this is a rumour.

Well if the rumour has been published in a magazine, then all you need to do is list the issue and page per WP:CITE or you could tell me and I could set of the citation. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)