Talk:Volkswagen emissions scandal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Two chronologies needed[edit]

There are two timelines that need to be presented here, in two different sections. One is the order of actual events, which should be the most important one[2] (approximately -- please verify):

  1. First a European NGO the International Council on Clean Transportation wanted to show the benefits of US diesel emissions rules to Europeans
  2. They hired CAFEE at U of WVa. to test cars, expecting to show how much cleaner US diesels were
  3. Everyone was surprised at the discrepancies between VW's real world and test performance
  4. The EPA heard about the results in a public presentation and the NGO published the results online
  5. The EPA began follow up tests to prove the deception
  6. And prodded VW for almost a year to explain, receiving BS denials of "technical" reasons for the inconsistency
  7. Early September 2015 EPA threatens to not certify VWs 2016 diesels
  8. VW finally admits wrongdoing
  9. Friday September 18 the EPA announces the recall order
  10. Sunday September 20, public apology
  11. Monday, September 21 stock price plummets, the above timeline becomes public

The second timeline is the one in the current article, what we knew and when we knew it. Right now the article gives this timeline more or less in reverse order, which is the order in which the facts became public. This is important to include in teh article because it describes how the scandal unfolded and how VW responded. It is relevant to the stock price moves on Monday and Tuesday the 21st and 22nd. Hence the need for two timelines: what happened when, and the other one: when we learned what happened and how VW responded based on how much they thought the EPA and the public knew. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Somewhere between 5 and 7 was the previous voluntary recall that did not address the NOx in any real way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.136.61 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

previous voluntary recall[edit]

Something should be added about the previous voluntary recall that did not address the NOx issue. I found this, but though WP as the source, it's from the blog section. Maybe someone else can find a better source:

...

California Air Resources Board “has determined that the previous recall did not address the high on-road NOx emissions, and also resulted in the vehicle failing certification standards,” it told the company this month.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/22/anatomy-of-volkswagons-deception-the-recall-that-never-fixed-any-cars/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.136.61 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to not use BlueTec in 2007?[edit]

It appears a fateful technical decision was made in 2007 or 2008. In 2007 it was announced that the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel would use BlueTec, a Daimler-Chrysler system that combined a NOx adsorber with Selective catalytic reduction (SCR).[3] But the Jetta instead debuted in 2008 without SCR -- avoiding a $5,000 to $8,000 added cost, extra weight, and a urea tank that had to be periodically refilled. Everyone else -- Mercedes and BMW -- use urea tanks to meet emissions rules, and the Jetta was going to also. But then the "breakthrough" happened (?), and they were able to proceed mostly or entirely without SCR, except for the Touareg which is not one of the cars with a defeat device. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> I don't think it would increase the price with $5-8K, in Europe where diesel cars are much more common (50% market share) there's a lot of cheaper diesels with similar solutions where the full price of the car is below $20K. Not a chance that just the filter would be 25-33% of the price. More likely they didn't want their customers to have to bother with the additive, since it was not needed on the european market anyway and it is often very expensive stuff, some cars need refilling every 60000 Km at a price of near $1K. Sijambo (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ea189[edit]

In the article, the engine EA189 is once referred to as a 1.5 liter engine, just to later be defined as a 2.0 liter engine. Which one is correct? Never heard of a VW 1.5 liter diesel engine, but there is a 1.6 liter variant as well. Googling indicates it is really the 2.0 liter engine but I'm not 100% sure, maybe someone with knowledge could clarify article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sijambo (talk • contribs) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEO admits culpability[edit]

Title is incorrect imo. Martin Winterkorn resigned, but he did not accept blame. In fact he specifically said he was "'not aware of any wrongdoing on my part' but was acting in the interest of the company." [1] 88.211.58.86 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and changed this to "Volkswagen CEOs admits company culpability". No objections if others come up with more eloquent wording. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates 2012-2015 Passat's are impacted and provides three references. However, two of the three references indicate 2014-2015 Passat's are impacted. I don't know the correct answer, but perhaps someone out there does.Steve06897 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)s.[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Hidden agenda[edit]

Regarding the alleged(!) excess NOx values of BMW, I ask myself, why isn't the company statement included in the article. Also, why isn't the ICCT whitepaper from September included in the article (http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_NOx-control-tech_revised%2009152015.pdf), which states the exact opposite - BMW comes out best. Remember, the Autobild report also quotes an ICCT test! Thridly, it could be argued, the BMW stock losses from today are in fact instigated, because in my quoted ICCT source, Volvo exceeds the NOx limits by a factor of 15 and todays stock only fell about half as much as BMWs, despite diesels accounting for 90% of engine production at Volvo and "only" 81% at BMW (ft article: VW scandal set to choke diesel car industry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.22.175 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you on about? Greglocock (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your agenda is clear, NPOV is for losers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.30.237 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do the US and EU limits compare?[edit]

It might be useful to actually lay down what the legal emission limits are in the US and the EU, and what real-conditions figures were recorded in both places.

Currently we see written that tested cars in the US exceeded the limits by x number of times, and in the EU by y number of times, and the infringement in the US is seemingly much, much greater (x >> y). But, without knowing what the respective limits are, and how they compare, it's meaningless. Is it that the cars in both territories are emitting the same amount of NOx, but the US has lower limits so the infringement is realtively worse, or are the limits broadly similar and there is something else that is ameliorating the real-life figures in the European tests?

I think the Euro VI NOx limits for diesel passenger cars are 0.08 g/km, but I have no idea what the US limits are.

The engine EA189, for which VW admitted the use of the defeat device, is Euro-5, not Euro-6. For established models, Euro-6 applies since September 2015, only new model-types had to confirm to Euro-6 beginning Sept. 2014. Euro-5 has an NOx limit of 0.180g/km for diesel-engines. --Boobarkee (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the US certification for these cars was EPA Tier 2 - Bin 5, which means no more than 0.05 grams NOx / mile travelled for engines with less than 50,000 miles and no more than 0.07 grams NOx / mile for engines at full life (defined to be 120,000 miles). Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And yes the US standards are considerably tougher the European ones. Dragons flight (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added more detail on emissions limits and test results. Dragons flight (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

porsche[edit]

The 1st sentence claims, that VW "has been caught" with porsche cars. The source only states, that porsche cars will be tested. --Boobarkee (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, totally unsupportable statement. It is gone. Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Testing conditions"?[edit]

If anyone has information as to what "testing conditions" really means and how a car device can recognise them, I think that would be a nice thing to add to the article. --Mlewan (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure: I designed some of the equipment used to conduct the EPA tests in question.)
Emission tests are normally done on a dynomometer using the FTP-75 test schedule.
All VW had to do was to program the car to go into EPA test mode when the computer saw that the vehicle was going through the FTP-75 driving cycle combined with none of the normal steering corrections that happen as a human stays in his lane on the highway.
It's a well-known problem in the industry, and we have detection measures which I am not at liberty to reveal. The interesting question is how VW managed to not trip those detection measures (which no doubt have been updated several times since I was working with them).
Please note that the above is my personal experience and thus is WP:OR. Plus it may be badly out of date. You need to find reliable sources that say the same before putting any of it into the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See what you say. Very useful info, but admittedly WP:OR. Thanks anyhow! Mlewan (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of adding FTP-75 to the 'See also' section. Thanks for pointing out that we already had an article on it, Guy Macon! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be relatively straight forward to have the default condition be "ECM on" and turn it off during acceleration. That was probably their design objective to improve performance and gas mileage while driving. I would be surprised if the motive was "defeat emissions" rather than improve performance/mileage. I would not be surprised if the earlier models used a wheel based accelerometer and moved to an electronic one without changing the software. A wheel based accelerometer could still shut off ECM but it would have to pass the test. --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about this Consumer Reports article: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/volkswagen-emissions-cheat-exploited-test-mode.htm . It says that, for cars to be tested properly where not all four wheels are moving, they need a "Dyno" or "Test" mode that disables the ABS system's usual response to drastically different wheel velocities. So, you turn on "Dyno" mode and then put the drive wheels on the dyno, with the opposite (rear in VW's case) wheels stationary. Then, you just enable all your emissions code when in "Dyno" mode, and relax emissions restrictions when not. Is this all that would be needed? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I added specific info about the conditions the defeat device tests for. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselgate?[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. HiDrNick! 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) HiDrNick! 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Volkswagen emissions violations → Dieselgate – This proposal may be too soon, but a number of sources (e.g. [4], [5], [6]) are employing the moniker Dieselgate. Should we too? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too soon. If we moved articles every time that media sources start referring to Widgetgate, well, we'd have a lot fewer articles with descriptive titles. Looks like the redirect has already been created. HiDrNick! 18:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Dieselgate" makes good clickbait. Readers see it and say, "Dieselgate? What's that?". But Wikipedia is here to inform readers, not entice them. Article titles should contain information about the subject, not merely sound snappy and hip. The other problem is that this isn't a diesel engine scandal, it's an emissions cheating scandal. The scandal is not that VW used diesel engines, it's that they gamed regulatory rules. Volkswagen emissions scandal is still the best title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dieselgate scandal? Like Watergate scandal? NickCT (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It needs Volkswagen in the title. "Diesel" can be in the title somewhere, though it's not as important as "emissions". Volkswagen+emissions+scandal are the most important facts, diesel is sort of relevant but not really. Not unless we have another Volkswagen emissions scandal that deals with non-diesel stuff. "Violations" is a weak substitute for "scandal". Violations of emissions rules are very common; car companies get piddling fines for that stuff all the time. The scandal is that they did it so deliberately, so sneakily, and they lied about it for over a year. Scandal is much more accurate than violations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Volkswagen emissions violations scandal might be a decent compromise, since it covers both the cause (cheating scandal) and the result (emissions violations). Note: usage. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to plural. BTW, I also think it may be time for a more general article, such as Automobile emissions violations. There were others last year and there's bound to be more after this one. --Light show (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not another "gate." If the moniker gains wide currency and is in use in a couple months, maybe. I continue to want the word "diesel" in the title and prefer Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal but not if that gets changed again in another few days. The article name has changed a couple times already in the last week. Jusdafax 20:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why is #piggate up for deletion when that's the populist hashtag that made it such a big story, yet 'dieselgate' is in quotes on the rare times it has been used? For clarity, the article title needs to keep Volkswagen in there are least. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think that the existing redirect will do just fine. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, revisit this in 6 or 9 months time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - Pretty clear there's no consensus for a move at this point. Nom withdraws. NickCT (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Caught changed to found to have used[edit]

The correct lead should say "VW was caught using illegal software" because they were caught. When you get caught, it implies -- correctly in this case -- that you would have kept doing it if you hadn't been caught. Saying VW merely "had been using" it makes it seem like a thing they did in the past and and then stopped for reasons elided because we don't want to talk about it. They only stopped because they were caught -- that is, the EPA repated all the independent tests and found the cheating, and then demanded an expiation, VW replied with lies, and when the EPA ran out of patience, they finally threatened to not certify the 2016 cars. Then -- only then -- did VW come clean. When we say "caught" it means they were getting away with it until they were exposed and forced to admit the truth. It's backwards to say that "caught using illegal software" is a violation of NPOV. What violates NPOV is to take the actual facts, what actually happened, and watering it down to create a more favorable story for VW. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caught implies wrongdoing. Is there some encyclopedic reason Wikipedia should be making this accusation in its own voice? I don't see it. Geogene (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on whether you think Wikipedia should claim the world is round "in its own voice". It depends on what your definition of is is. I think if we are not going to be radical skeptics about the evolution and extinction of dinosaurs or the standard historical accounts of 9/11 or the JFK assassination, then we should not be radical skeptics about this. And we don't even have a fringe theory asserting that VW didn't cheat or that it really wasn't illegal. The only conspiracy theorists are our own editors right here. We are violating WP:NOR by creating a false impression of uncertainty about facts that all parties agree are true. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we have reliable sources that say illegal, and none saying it isn't, then surely the wiki way is to say illegal? Greglocock (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of facts, you mean? :) For something to be illegal, there's got to be a law being broken. What's the law, in this case? --Pete (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup verifiability>truth. go and read your 5 pillars. The EPA says it is illegal and cites chapter and verse. They could be wrong I suppose, but VW seem to agree with them. Greglocock (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Notice of Violation. The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C § 7401-7671. and 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), and 203(a)(1). Etc., etc. “Using a defeat device in cars to evade clean air standards is illegal and a threat to public health,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.[7]. Using. A. Defeat. Device. Is. Illegal. These are all civil violations, which is the province of the EPA. Nobody has said that anyone at VW is a convicted criminal. Criminal charges have not yet been brought by the Justice Department, but they may yet be. Civil violations are illegal, however.

Has anyone asked themselves how a company can be assessed $18B in fines for doing something legal? You don't get fined if you didn't break the law. Fines are for illegal acts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is synthesis. We can't use logic to source a statement that nobody has actually uttered. Do you have a source, or is that your best shot? --Pete (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logic? The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles uttered it, for one. How many need to say it? We might as well decide there are no facts. It's merely opinion that the earth orbits the sun now, and we can't say it in "Wikipedia's voice". We have to say, "Copernicus claims the earth orbits" but who are we to judge? This is getting very silly. Maybe I'm just missing something. Has even one source disputed any of these facts? Even one? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DB, could you check Wikipedia's policy, please. Let's stick to policy, please, rather than using emotive language such as that above. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are inserting your original research into the article by changing the meaning of words found in sources to a different meaning which suits your sensibilities. You seem to have a filter in place of things not said about global brands. Like a code of decorum that makes "cheating" by a company like VW unthinkable. You are violating our policies of verifability by pushing this POV and deviating from the facts given by sources. You have cited zero sources which cast doubt on the copiously sourced fact that VW was caught illegally cheating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the visibility of this article, Dennis, rather than any cncerns about the firm itself - you are just plain wrong in your speculations. I've asked for accurate and freliable sources, rather than synthesis. Is there a problem with this? --Pete (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything at Wikipedia:In the news that puts extraordinary restrictions on editors like me just because somebody else went and decided to put the article on the main page. If you think this article fails ITN criteria, then go over there and ask to have it taken down. You can't use ITN as a bludgeon to win content disputes. And anyway, if ITN is a reason to stick to the rules on an article, the rules say we should follow our sources, not slant what we find in a particular direction. You're saying we should take every negative thing they say about VW and rewrite it to sound less bad for them. That's POV pushing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What statement do we need to source? For Illegal defeat device see https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=volkswagen+emissions+illegal+defeat+device for many RS. Greglocock (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"VW was caught using illegal software", as DB began this section. I think we should ensure someone out in the real world makes such a claim before we do. --Pete (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is littered with links to articles saying Volkswagen was caught illegal software to cheat on emissions testing. The article's citations say that over and over. How is it you're able to act as if no one has said it? Who hasn't said it? I can't figure out what you're asking for that you haven't already seen. What would a source that would satisfy you look like? What is it you want to see? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=volkswagen%20illegal%20software Several articles use it as their headline. Greglocock (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of courts determining illegality, we have headline-writers. And instead of discussion, we have abuse. Right. Can you find me someone who said straight out what DB wants Wikipedia to say? Someone with more connection to legal process than being on the receiving end of a ticket, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you questioning that using a "defeat device" is generally illegal? The EPA says so, specific laws and regulations can be quoted if you want, major media have repeated it, and no one that I have seen has disputed it. It is like how theft is generally illegal, and I'm not sure how there is anything to dispute there. Or are you questioning whether VW in particular was caught using a defeat device? It is hard to see how that can be disputed either since they seem to have admitted doing it. It is not like they have offered any kind of a defense or said it didn't happen. If someone is seen by many witnesses to steal my car, and then he admits to stealing my car, then do you really need to wait for the conclusion of a court process before saying that "he was caught stealing my car"? That's silly. Dragons flight (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the reasoning and synthesis doesn't make up for the lack of someone actually making the statement that DB wants us to make. If we can't link to a reliable source, then we can't claim something. That's pretty basic, and no amount of juggling will get around it. --Pete (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read any of the news articles? "How VW got caught cheating emissions tests" [8]. "[C]lean air NGO caught Volkswagen cheating emissions tests" [9]. "Volkswagen officials illegally rigged their vehicles’ pollution-control systems so they would run cleanly only during emissions tests" [10]. One could go on and on, as suggested by Google searches above. You haven't explained how DB's statement is in any material way different from dozens of similar statements that are already widely reported. Dragons flight (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this so difficult? Can't you just find and quote a source? Come on, we're accusing a global brand of illegal behaviour. We really need a better authority than a journalist's opinion. Or we can, as suggested above, use an exact quote and attribute it to a person. We're an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and people turn to us for useful information rather than a breathless headline. --Pete (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you care so much about accuracy, then please do not make us have to refute patently false statements, like saying this is a "journalist's opinion". Your assertion right there is a falsehood. The US EPA is leveling the accusation, not one random journalist, and that is their job. They judge when companies have violated the law. They hand out the penalties. They do not have to go to a court of law and ask a judge to assign fines or issue orders for a recall. The EPA has that authority. They issue fines for these civil infractions. It's NOT a journalist's opinion.

We certainly can attribute quotes to people like Cynthia Giles down in the body of the article, but the lead is a straightforward summary.

Your suggestion that "global brands" get special treatment suggests you have some kind of a prejudice operating here. The policies of verifiablity and no original research apply to all subjects, even global brands. We follow reliable sources in every article. There is no special treatment where we water down embarrassing facts to protect the reputation of companies, large or small. This NYT article might help you get a better understanding what kind of company VW is, and has always been. No need to get starry-eyed in admiration for "global brands". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but if we're going to follow the EPA's lead, then we're going to need to insert the weasel word "alleged" throughout the article, because that's what the EPA is doing [11], [12]. Apparently they aren't comfortable framing the accusation as a straightforward statement of fact, as is being advocated here. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're just plain wrong about my motives there, Dennis. It would help if you refrained from speculation. I'm fine with using a named person as a source for these allegations. Getting the wording of the summary in the lead accurate is proving difficult, but we seem to be getting there through discussion. Let's stick to wikipolicy as a guide, rather than attacking other editors, shall we? --Pete (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's called the duck test. If your motives are not to protect VW's public image, then stop acting that way. Many sources have said they are stunned by what VW did, but everyone agrees they really did it. VW came clean. You are taking on the role of devils advocate in favor of VW and you have no external support. No independent, third party sources which say what you would like the article to say. Pointing out that your behavior is POV pushing and that you have made false statement is not a personal attack. You don't get a free pass to act this way and then cite NPA when anybody calls you on it. Please stop. Either that, or cite something already. Cite one source that casts doubt on the fact that VW was caught illegally cheating. Can you cite one? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, the DUCK test only applies to socks. Geogene (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link to WP:DUCK. I said "the duck test". The concept of recognizing something by its behavior predates Wikipedia by quite some time. If you act like a shill for VW, that's a problem, regardless of your intent to be a shill. What you are matters more than what you think you are. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, you may also find the discussion at Monsanto legal cases of interest. Just sayin'. Jusdafax 04:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jus, could you just clarify whether the above is a breach of WP:CANVASS or a recruitment drive for your version of the Skyring Fan Club? Either way, perhaps you could move it somewhere else and FOC? --Pete (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMW in introduction NPOV[edit]

Why is the BMW X3 mentioned in the introduction of VW manipulation scandal? No one except Auto Bild has claimed or has proven that BMW uses the same methods as VW did. BMW itself has rejected these claims.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/24/us-bmw-manipulation-idUSKCN0RO17T20150924

The German car newspaper Auto Bild which had accused BMW just took back their accusations today. They declared that they didn't want accuse BMW and that in the case of BMW the tests results of ICCT don't prove manipulation through any technical device.

http://www.focus.de/auto/angebliche-manipulation-bei-abgastests-nach-schweren-vorwuerfen-gegen-bmw-zeitschrift-muss-zurueckrudern_id_4971026.html

statemnt on Auto Bild's own webpage.

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/klarstellung-abgaswerte-bei-bmw-diesel-6920195.html

As it stands now, the introduction is not neutral, because it suggests that BMW would manipulate too. Ich901 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. I deleted the sentence. That information should be in the BMW article, not in the lede here. If other diesel-powered or gasoline models are involved, mention of that can be made in the body of the article and perhaps in the lede if substantial info is evident, but for now it's out of place. Jusdafax 23:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality tag discussion[edit]

I create this section as a convenience, and add that tag appears to be unjustified. Discuss. Jusdafax 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear enough, but the tag was added by John in regard to the question of using the words "cheated" and "illegal" in the lead. So the discussion is happening above. "Illegal" has been removed, though I think it should be put back. "Cheated" is the only reason the tag is still there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every external ref I have seen on this case uses the word illegal. I think it that being mealy mouthed about this case is completely unjustified. BLP etc is not relevant at the company level. Cheated is also used in several articles on this. I'd say the weight of the main stream media articles is on the side of using cheated and illegal in the lede. Do I need to waste my time putting together the statistics on this? I don't think so, I think john needs to state his case, with evidence. Greglocock (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just taking random stories for a few organisations
NYT "illicit" cheat" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/opinion/what-was-volkswagen-thinking.html
BBC "cheat" http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772
WaPo "Cheat" http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/own-a-vw-diesel-heres-what-you-need-to-know/2015/09/21/f179d3f6-60a5-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html
Or more specifically looking for news items that uses all three search terms volkswagen cheat and illegal gets a ridiculous number of hits, tho many are dupes or blogs of course. I'll give John a day to make his case otherwise both terms go back into the lede. Greglocock (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point appears to be moot for now, seeing as the tag is removed. Jusdafax 01:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally the EPA letter to VW http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf uses the word illegal in the context of the defeat algorithm. Case, surely, closed? Greglocock (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. A notice of violation is the first in many steps that could lead to either a finding by a court of illegal activity or to a successful appeal by VW. It is the EPA equivalent of an arrest, not of a conviction. Thus the words in the document you referenced:
"...specific violations that the EPA believes, at this point, are sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant the allegations in this NOV"
Wikipedia does not accuse anyone of illegal activity based on an accusation, before they have a chance to mount a defense (or plead guilty, as the case may be) and a judge delivers a verdict.
Full disclosure: a number of years ago I was the engineer in charge of designing some of the test equipment the EPA uses in these tests and have participated in drafting answers to NOVs. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, nobody who has to even ask what is non-NPOV about German car maker Volkswagen AG was caught using software to illegally cheat on emissions tests should be anywhere near editing this article. --John (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion might go against guidelines, however, which allows citing the NY Times and the U.S. government. --Light show (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in a universe where "accused" and "found guilty" were synonymns, your view would make some sense. In this universe, it does not. --John (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki doesn't work like that. First,articles have to be NPOV, not individual statements. Second a reliable source says 'illegal' and it is a relevant description of the switch. It's illegality is well described in the EPA letter, and as demonstrated, many news outlets have no qualms about using the same term, and VW has admitted the guts of the EPA's accusations. I admit, in a month's time the exact status will be better known, so perhaps it isn't worth really bothering about. Greglocock (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in a universe where "the EPA making an allegation of guilt in a Notice of Violation" equals "a court of law handing down a guilty verdict".
And please don't say things like "Wiki doesn't work like that" when it is you who is advocating violating Wikipedia's (The name is Wikipedia, not Wiki) core principle of WP:NPOV.
I don't know where you got "articles have to be NPOV, not individual statements", but WP:NPOV clearly states "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)".
All means all. Every single statement needs to be NPOV. That means we can describe in a neutral fashion what the accusation was and who did the accusing, but we cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that the accusation is true or false. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What they did was illegal. Saying so is a fact. Whether individuals are convicted of a crime is a different thing; nobody has been convicted of anything. But copious sources agree that they did cheat on emissions rules, and they did repeatedly lie about it to regulators. They admitted this illegal act, and nobody disputes these basic facts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Dennis. I also find the warning on your talk page, and the rapidly-closed ANI report naming you and this article, to be notable, and in my view arguably an attempt at intimidation. Thanks for standing your ground. Jusdafax 23:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't say it's illegal in WP voice. Use a source to say it and attribute it to the source. If there are are no sources that say it's illegal, then it's clearly not the place for WP to say it. That determination has not been made. --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA says it, and the CEOs admit it. Winterkorn resigned over it. We can say that the EPA says it's illegal, sure, but the word should be in the lede, as I see it. And I repeat, an admin taking this matter to ANI and threatening to block editors over a content dispute is unacceptable. Jusdafax 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the EPA said "Notice of Violation", that's not a euphemism for illegal. If they didn't cite anything from Title 18, it's not criminal. This appears to be civil. Where did the EPA or VW describe it as illegal in their voice? --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the last paragraph, Page 4 of this EPA letter. "Illegal defeat device" is clear enough. Again, the word used by the EPA is "illegal." Jusdafax 02:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's perfectly reasonable to say "the EPA has alleged in in a notice of violation that VW used an 'illegal defeat device'." That's it hough. There's been no adjudication, however. DHeyward (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed early 1970s defeat device issue for lack of context[edit]

I want to write a complete article on defeat devices, but the reason for this revert is that the "defeat device" fines VW got in the early 1970s were for things that Ford, GM and Chrysler also did. It was not deliberately gaming the system the way the TDI cars were programmed to detect tests and pass them. It was a matter of carburetor temperature sensors being calibrated in a particular way which the EPA thought pushed it too far. An innocent explanation was far more plausible.

We should include this context in this article, but Bloomberg's article [13] is insufficient. Go to HighBeam and Gale (publisher) and other news archives and read the original news articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emission tables[edit]

Emission tables: It would be good if we keep older Emissions tables for CO_2 and similar to compare with real values which will come anytime soon, to compare the extent of "smuggled" exhaust. --PetarM (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are getting at. The cars on the EPA cycle running in full emissions mode would probably be worse for CO2 than if they were running in cheat mode. Greglocock (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at the WVU report, that's not the case. It's only NOx where there's any serious discrepancy. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this stated in that interminable and badly laid out report? http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/09/21/document_cw_02.pdf So far as I can tell they never put the cars on rollers, so my statement is not examined in the report at all. And i don't think they messed about with the defeat device either. Greglocock (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The executive summary gives all of this information. I can quote the relevant parts if need be. The various tables all show the same results - non-NOx emissions under all relevant standards apart from occasional exceptions such as DPF regeneration (whatever that may be). --Pete (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question was about CO2 not NOx - and I repeat, they didn't put the car on rollers nor did they mess with th defeat switch. Greglocock (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • p66 "One out of the three test vehicles, specifically the Vehicle B, was selected for a crosscorrelation evaluation between the OBS-2200 PEMS and laboratory grade instruments while the vehicle was operated over standardized test cycles on a chassis dynamometer at CARB’s lightduty constant volume sampling (CVS) test facility in El Monte (CA). This allowed to establish confidence in the measurement results of the PEMS, as well as to identify possible issues with the on-road measurement setup."
  • p54 gives graphs for CO, CO2, NOx, and THC emissions for Vehicle B on static dynamometer testing with both the portable and lab test equipment. Each graph shows the emission standard levels for each emission, and apart from the cold-start testing, all testing was at or below the standards levels.
Vehicles A and B were tested on the rollers. There are more graphs than anybody could wish for, all dutifully labelled and annotated. Admittedly, the report is voluminous and written with a grim technicality – it could use a few jokes, maybe some roadtrip tales, photographs of the dustjacket-clad testers relaxing with a beer after a day's driving while filling out the test sheets and so on – but it is straightforward enough. There was no "defeat switch" to mess with - they tested the ECU to verify it was operating correctly and then tested the cars exhaustively. --Pete (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the roller bit. I wrote "The cars on the EPA cycle running in full emissions mode would probably be worse for CO2 than if they were running in cheat mode. " You replied "If we look at the WVU report, that's not the case." and then the above. Since they didn't run the vehicles on rollers with and without cheat mode, it doesn't test my assertion. Greglocock (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, brother, but are you sure you have a handle on the facts of this matter? --Pete (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. There's a competence issue here that is forcing other editors to have to repeatedly spell out and justify well-publicized, well-established facts here for no good reason. Unless a reliable third party has published an opinion that questions any of the basic facts of this case, we don't need to keep wasting time on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat[edit]

I'll not speculate about motives, because, well it's Wikipeida and everyone sees an agenda somewhere. However I'm somewhat concerned with the use of "cheat" in the lead, because it's inflammatory. What VW is accused/admitted is using a "defeat device". See http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443053672/how-a-little-lab-in-west-virginia-caught-volkswagens-big-cheat for a more detailed explanation. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider NPR inflammatory? The source you cite used the headline "How A Little Lab In West Virginia Caught Volkswagen's Big Cheat". It not only says they were caught (gasp!) it says they cheated. It seems like if you disapprove of such language then you should be telling us to rely on sources who don't say caught, cheated, or illegal. I've already posted long lists of links from your New York Times, Telegraph, Guardian, WaPo and other upstanding media who all say it was illegal, they did cheat, and they got caught.

Can anyone cite sources who question whether it was cheating, or say maybe it wasn't illegal, or they didn't get caught? We've got to stop twisting the truth away from what our sources tell us. We are not treating "both sides" fairly when there is only one side and the other side is a fabrication, a straw man we created to support an imaginary neutrality. Follow the sources, don't water them down to a false equivalence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheat" is pretty clearly not encyclopedic. NickCT (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight - I'm sure there's a pretty easy alternative here, but I think it's up to the folks inserting the inappropriate language to develop the alternative. NickCT (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheat" is appropriate language, appearing in many reliable sources. However, I'll accept your suggestion of "inappropriately pass" (as opposed to simply "pass" which was much too weak), though I think stronger language would also be appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragons flight: - I don't think you'd find "cheat" used in many reliable 2ndry sources. It's a media buzz word. Regardless, perhaps User:Freedatum has touched the right key with "fraudulently". NickCT (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? [14] Anyway, "fraudulently" works for me as well. Dragons flight (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragons flight: - Apologies. I mispoke. I meant "in many reliable tertiary sources". Not "2ndry sources". Reliable tertiary sources such as what WP strives to be. ;-) NickCT (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does "encyclopedic" mean. Cheat is not slang, it's not informal English. It's a standard, well-defined word. The only benefit of shoehorning "fraudulently" is that it's more syllables and makes you sound smarter. "Encyclopedic" is not equal to "pretentious". The other problem with fraudulently? Fraud is a specific crime, and the crimes here are violations of the Clean Air Act (sections listed in the Notice of Violation) and the subsequent false statements to the EPA investigators. Loosely speaking, that is "fraudulent" but I'm pretty sure loose speech is not encyclopedic. "Cheat" is precisely the right word.

Not found in reliable secondary sources? Why do you guys keep saying that? Here, again: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. I get the sense there are editors who have an automatic filter that rejects specific words as "unencyclopeic" or "inflammatory" without ever reading any of the citations. You have to go read this stuff first, then make your case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheating" is actually a specific crime, so you've got a problem there. If we're talking about illegal behaviour, let's get the wording precisely right. We don't need to be sloppy. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters reported that VW made a formal confession to officials on September 3, backed up by written documents, that they intentionally designed their software to "manipulate" the tests, after "more than a year of stonewalling". The Reuters lead says it was a "confession of cheating".

So you're arguing that we should write articles for an audience more familiar with ancient English common law than a common, than with modern offense like fraud? That would be what is called "archaic" language, and unencyclopedic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the issue of crimes, brother. Just helping you out with some useful information of which you seem to have been ignorant. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's highly unlikely we will mislead anyone into thinking any one at VW has been charged with cheating at cards, or of swindling a widow out of her property. It is totally plausible that the Justice Department could charge them with fraud related to this, but that hasn't happend yet and we should not imply that it has. "Cheat" is accurate and not misleading. "Fraudulently" carries a strong connotation that the crime of fraud has been charged. Which is probably why you're not citing sources who use that word, while I've cited many of them who say "cheat". The responsible news media has the same goal here: fairness and accuracy, and they are the ones saying VW cheated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are wrong with your speculation above. You brought up the subject of crimes, I informed you. I think cheating - leaving out the legal usage - is most commonly associated in contemporary culture with cheating in exams or cheating on a spouse. The latter doesn't really apply unless someone is really, really close to their Golf, but cheating on a test is also the wrong image. VW didn't falsify the results during the static tests: they were completely honest and accurate. "Misleading" is a better word, I think. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You think? You think cheating is associated with exams or adultery? That's nice, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Your conclusion that VW did not cheat is not found in sources. Here, again, are a good sampling of the sources.:
We do not need to fumble in the dark to decide the correct wording here. Reliable sources are giving us the correct wording: caught illegally cheating. We should hew closely to our sources, not act as advocates for VW trying to soft peddle the seriousness of this. If our sources call something a war, we call it a war, not a "police action" or "conflict". If our sources call it a "terrorist attack" we don't change that to "incident". Your discomfort with the word "cheating" and your personal opinions about what it connotes are not relevant. Our sources tell us what the word means. Our sources say it was cheating. That's all that matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The cheating=adultery thing was a little joke on my part. I didn't expect you to take it seriously. Perhaps you need to look into your own heart to see why this is so. Let's leave it there. My problem with cheating as a description is that it misleads the reader. Volkswagen didn't cheat on their test - they just engaged the NOx system as intended and the emission readings were completely accurate measurements. The critical point is that for normal driving, the NOx system was disengaged. That's the message we need to convey. Now, headline-writing is a subset of English, where space is limited and short words are valued - check out the front page of any newspaper and you will see examples of this - but we have the full range of English vocabulary available, and we can use the word that fits best, rather than something that is short and misleading. You see my point? --Pete (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop filling this talk page with false statements. These uses of "cheat" are not only in the headlines. Anyone can see that. You can see that. None of these reputable sources write inaccurate or salacious headlines anyway; they have the same journalistic standards in their headlines as anywhere else. You are flat out denying cited facts and you cite nothing in return. This is disruptive editing. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]




I'm not sure who did it, but thank you for acknowledging my concerns, much less addressing "cheat". Regardless of the sources calling VW cheaters, it is refreshing to see that Wikipedia has the restraint to treat their cheating in a neutral fashion. Once again, I thank everyone who responded here. Sometimes the system works.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using euphemisms, legalese and highfalutin lingo[edit]

Wikipedia tells it like it is. See WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:EUPHEMISM. We do not use euphemisms to protect anyone's sensibilities, nor do we have to use legalese for fear of some kind of imaginary liability. The WP:BLP policy requires erring on the side of caution with living persons, but Volkswagen is not a living person and so we are free to simply say what our sources say. The EPA issued a notice of violation saying that VW broke the law. All the reputable sources agree that what they did was illegal. We can say so. There is no controversy over that. If reputable sources existed who argued that perhaps what they did was not illegal, or maybe they didn't really do it, then the neutrality policy would require that we give both sides due weight. No such two points of view exist here.

Several edits have changed the lead to say they "changed" test results or "falsified" test results. This makes is sound like they forged a document, or altered a record of test data. In fact, they used a sophisticated algorithm to cheat during testing. Readers come to this article because they want to sort out this confusing story, and understand what happened. Our job is to explain it. Wikipedia uses plain English -- which means we use strong, clear language like "cheated" because it's accurate and unmistakable. We don't need to impresss anyone by sounding smart or showing off our big vocabulary. We are not PR flacks. We are not lawyers. Plain English please. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. On the other hand, WP:NPOV and WP:COPYVIO are pretty important, as is WP:V. The article as it stands is not ok. It might be best to let others take a look at this now. --John (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because

In September 2015, German car maker Volkswagen AG was caught using software to illegally cheat on emissions tests for 11 million of its diesel engine Volkswagen- and Audi-branded cars sold between 2009 and 2015. The deception resulted in engines passing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards during testing and yet having vehicles emitting up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in real world driving.

does not sound like a neutrally written encyclopedia article, I have tagged the article for NPOV. --John (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@John: In what way does this text violate the WP:NPOV policy? Jarble (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the text you quoted above isn't neutral? --Jayron32 23:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. All right, though I am surprised anyone needs this explained to them. Would we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the Iraq war was illegal? Would we state, in Wikipedia's voice, that nuclear weapons are illegal? Should our article on European colonisation of the Americas state, in Wikipedia's voice, that it was illegal? If not, why not? It is fairly easy to find reliable sources which state that all three instances were illegal, but our standard here is to wait until a widely recognised court gives a ruling. I think the same standard should apply here. --John (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Iraq War and Nuclear Weapons are unrelated to this issue. If you wish to change the text of those articles, use those talk pages. We're discussing the content of THIS article on THIS talk page. Our standard is, and should always be, to not interject our own opinons and feelings, but to reflect what mainstream, reliable sources say. Neutral doesn't mean "say only nice things". It means "say what reliable sources say". --Jayron32 13:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you did not understand my analogy. I will try to scaffold it to assist you. The three topics I highlighted do have something in common with the topic we are discussing. The connection is this. All four topics have articles on Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's core policies is linked at the shortcut WP:NPOV. It does not state "say what reliable sources say". It does say Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.". Begin by reading WP:NPOV, as it seems clear you do not understand it, then come back if you are still having problems, please. --John (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, you agree with exactly what I wrote below regarding attribution? It's good to know that I have convinced you of that. It seems strange you would take an adversarial tone, and then quote the part of NPOV which states exactly what I stated below. Maybe if you were more concerned with making this article better, and less concerned with "defeating" people you perceive as "enemies", you might get less pushback. --Jayron32 17:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should attribute "illegal" and "cheating" in the body of the article. We can cite about 3 sources for those -- we could cite 20 sources but that would be carpetbombing -- down in the body. In the lead, we only need to summarize, so the atribution doesn't need to go there. Of course, John just reverted -- he just got his ass kicked at ANI but he's pretending he won that battle. Maybe we need to wait for this rouge Admin to get a VW emissions topic ban before we can get back to doing our job of writing this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please move your copyvio discussion elsewhere? It's unhelpful to mix that up with a totally separate discussion of plain English vs legalese and euphemisms. The copyright violation is a totally separate part of the article. Better yet, just fix it and there wouldn't be any need for copyvio tags. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon??? I'm not discussing COPYVIOs at all. I think you may be confused. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my comment to the correct place. Sorry for the mixup. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the copy-paste now and reverted the paragraph back to what it said before that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a court judgement before we say that the activities were illegal. In point of fact, there was no cheating during testing - the emissions were within legal limits because the engine and control systems operated as designed. The deception was that the operation during testing was not the normal driving operation, when emissions were higher. Do we have any figures for the actual emission levels? I'm seeing sources giving a range of numbers, up to 40 times legal levels, but no information on whey are getting their information from. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The EPA has made a legal judgement already. This is not a criminal charge (yet) against a person. It's a company being regulated by the EPA, and the EPA has made their determination of guilt. The company broke the law and now they await fines and corrective action. They also admitted guilt so there's no reason to think they're going to challenge the EPAs ruling in court. But even if they do, that's an appeal. The fact of illegality has been established. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The factor of 40 comes from the WVU CAFEE study of two VWs and a BMW. The report is very long and tedious and hard to summarise but it is already cited in the article. Basically the BMW performed well for NOX except for long downhill runs, whereas the VWs were hopeless pretty much all the time. Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. It's the figures I'm interested in. It seems unlikely that a VW produced 40 times as much NOx as the BMW. Perhaps we're misleading our readers? --Pete (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just BMW. Nothing special about them, it's any diesel that meets the EPA limits. Lots of sources say the VWs with the emissions controls deactivated produced NOx levels up to 40 times the standard.[22][23][24]. It's the number they got from the EPA.

Of course the emissions would be a large number. Why would VW or anybody go to such lengths to carry out such an elaborate deception if the benefit were small? If they were within a few percent of the limit, they could have tweaked the design to squeak by -- legally. The conundrum was that they were miles away from compliance -- a factor of 40X -- and so had to take extreme measures. If it were any thing else, that would be implausible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen isn't quite the third-world manufacturer you seem to imagine, Dennis! One would expect modern European manufacturers to produce engines and exhausts of broadly similar specifications for more or less equivalent vehicles. A difference of an order of magnitude would imply something which would be immediately obvious to a person experienced in testing vehicles. To be four times as great again is, frankly, unbelievable. I'm working my way through the report and it is pretty heavy going, but I'll get there. Does anybody have a way to cut to the chase, as it were? As opposed to quoting headlines. --Pete (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I'd better believe it. The report shows NOx emissions of up to 40 times the standard. Not sure this is that great a problem, to be honest. Carbon emissions of various forms seemed to be roughly the same for all three vehicles and mostly within the required limits. --Pete (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about carbon. HC, CO, CO2, soot, and NOx are all very different pollutants with different effects. Diesels in general produce lower greenhouse gas emissions, HC, CO, and CO2 (due to fuel economy), than gasoline engines, with the tradeoff of higher NOx. Europe is more concerned about greenhouse gases than the US, so they have higher limits on NOx than the US, resulting in many more diesel cars on the road, and a dark brown cloud over Paris. NOx is highly visible, because it reacts with the atmosphere to become a colored cloud. Americans are more sensitive to the visible cloud of smog over cities like LA, so they -- uncharacteristically -- have more strict regulations than Europe in this area. These differences are at the root of this scandal: cars that do well in Europe run into problems in the US, and VW needed some kind of "magic" (ahem, cheat) to get the best of both worlds.

If you head over to Talk:NOx#Global cooling, you'll see we have a lot of confused articles, because the definition of NOx varies, and it's important because NO and NO2 cause health problems, acid rain, and smog, and global cooling (they destroy methane, a greenhouse gas). On the other hand, N2O, a different pollutant with a very similar-looking name, is a greenhouse gas. Cars, especially diesels, produce NO and NO2, and a little N2O, but mostly N2O comes from other sources. For cars, the US EPA regulates only NO and NO2. It's all very, very confusing, and many of our sources mix it up. There's a long list of Wikipedia articles that have incorrect Wikilinks or other errors due to this confusion.

In short , the VW scandal is not a global warming issue, except to a small degree you could argue that the US is on the wrong side of global warming here, and Europe -- and even VW's cheating -- is on the right side. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks for the lecture. I thought the issue was engines and emissions and how they were measured. What the emissions do once they are out of the exhaust is a different topic. I wouldn't be so tough on VW if I were you - this sort of behaviour is quite likely to be fairly widespread; VW isn't that much an innovator that they lead the pack in any area. --Pete (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Quite likely to be widespread" That right there is another example of you making things up and using your made up theories to push a point of view that doesn't exist in our sources. Your assumptions about what VW is capable of are baseless, and uninformed. The NYT has explained that in fact this is typical of how VW is run, according to experts. “The governance of Volkswagen was a breeding ground for scandal,” said Charles M. Elson, professor of finance and director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware. “It was an accident waiting to happen.” Your baseless assumption that other companies did the same thing is contradicted by this NYT article. Yes, a degree of emissions rules violations is common, but this elaborate hoax, the deliberate evasion of testing on VW's part is almost unprecedented.

Wikipedia calls what you're doing Tendentious editing. Please cite any source that shares your opinions about this case. You've never once done so; you're making up explanations for these events out of whole cloth and expecting everyone else to edit around those made up explanations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article can cite reliable sources which claim VW's actions were "illegal." If the word is still an issue, simply attribute and cite whoever said it. If another source says it wasn't illegal as of now, we can cite that source the same way. Since we're not judges, all we can do is rely on the best sources we can find to back up hot-button terms or other details. We can even put any words in quotes, to make clear that someone else has made the claim. --Light show (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Light show said. Overt citation style, where you directly quote, or paraphrase, and attribute in the prose of the article who said it, is always best. --Jayron32 13:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When most people use the term "illegal" they mean a violation of law. Is that what this is, or is it a regulatory violation? I'm not a fan of imprecise language. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. "it's very unlikely others have gone as far as Volkswagen to make vehicles illegally pass emissions standards". There's dozens of quotes to that effect. What kind of software was it? "illegal software"! They "illegally installed software in its diesel-power cars to evade standards for reducing smog." It's not "people" using the term illegal -- it's our reliable sources using the term. Our job is not to change what the sources say into our own version of it. Our sources are saying they got. caught. cheating. with. illegal. software. We are violoating WP:NOR and changing "caught" to "found" and we're just deleting "illegal" because it sounds too opinionated. It's not an opinion. Read the sources. Our sources tell us what to say. We don't make it up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find none of that convincing, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:TRUTHMATTERS. But I did research it, and answered my own question: The EPA is alleging a direct violation of statute (the Clean Air Act) not the regulations they're authorized to promulgate under that statute. For what it's worth, that's a civil offense, not a criminal one, but I'm not worried about that distinction. Geogene (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government regulatory bodies in both the US and the EU can declare practices 'illegal' without recourse to a court of law. Mandatory regulations are 'law' for the purposes that if you knowingly and willfully break them you can (potentially) be prosecuted criminally. This rarely happens as the company accepts liability and pays a fine. In the event of prosecution the actual criminal law depends on what the offense is and how it was committed. For finance it tends to be criminal fraud, health & safety regs tend to be prosecuted for various endangerment to human life etc. However the actual breaking of the regulations is the point where it becomes illegal. If the sources generally describe it as an illegal device because the (in this case, EPA) describe it as illegal when they have made their ruling, its illegal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interview with Peter Mock from ICCT[edit]

This might noteworthy for the article. Peter Mock from ICCT (http://www.theicct.org/peter-mock), the person who first became suspicious said in an interview with on September 22. that he did additional tests with ADAC regarding nitrogen oxide emissions of several European models from different manufacturers. He said that under street conditions exceeding limit values of emissions were "commonplace". Some of the manufacturers had higher emissions then the ones of VW. Under the current New European Driving Cycle testing cycle the emissions were within the limits but not under future gloabally harmonized Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedures testing cycle (which is closer to realistic driving conditions), where the emissions results are multiple times worse.

quote from Peter Mock: "Grenzwert-Überschreitungen auf der Straße sind hier gang und gäbe. Gerade haben wir mit dem ADAC den Stickoxid-Ausstoß einzelner Modelle in Europa untersucht. Da gibt es einige Hersteller, die deutlich schlechter abschneiden als Volkswagen. Im derzeitigen Testzyklus NEFZ halten sie ohne Probleme den Grenzwert ein, aber im künftigen Testzyklus WLTC (der reale Fahrbedingungen näher kommen soll, Anmerkung der Redaktion) stehen sie um ein Vielfaches schlechter da."

http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/autoindustrie/peter-mock-vom-icct-ueber-den-vw-abgasskandal-a-1054157-2.html Ich901 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EPA is incorrectly given credit for discovering the defeat device in the lead[edit]

Can someone please correct this? The NPR article I added above shows that WVU researchers are the ones who "busted" VW. They should receive the lions share of the discovery in the lead, not the EPA.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of defeat devices known since 2011[edit]

This should be added to the article

"Britain and other European nations were warned four years ago that car manufacturers were using emissions-rigging technology to fake diesel tests. In 2011 a group of scientists representing EU member states found evidence of the use of “defeat devices” – the technology through which Volkswagen skewed exhaust readings. It took another two years for the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JCR) to publicise its findings, even though the devices had been illegal in Europe since 2007."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11892782/Volkswagen-scandal-Europe-warned-four-years-ago-that-car-makers-were-rigging-emissions.html Ich901 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emission violations in the 1990s[edit]

Volkswagen is not the first company to be caught using "defeat devices". If this article is correct [32] six companies (including two European ones) were using them in the 1990s. The US authorities brought in a regulation [33] (40 CFR 86.1809-10 - Prohibition of defeat devices) banning defeat devices in about 2007. This history seems to have been forgotten. Biscuittin (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition on defeat devices is written into the Clean Air Act, it's not something found only in the Code of Federal Regulations. Geogene (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not familiar with US legislation. I'm just puzzled that nobody has made the link between the 1990s violations and the 2015 ones. The media in England are treating it as something completely new. Biscuittin (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This refers to the Clean Air Act (United States) of 1963. The first instance of 'defeat device' enforcement I've found was in 1972 via Newspaper Archive, paywalled. Automobile 'Defeat Device' Ruled Out by Federal EPA By Ron Scherer. New York (UPI). Galesburg Register Mail. Saturday, December 16, 1972, Galesburg, Illinois.

GM, Ford, Chyrsler, American Motors, Nissan, and Toyota had installed sensors to trigger disabling emissions controls under conditions like cold weather, or low speed, to provide better drivability. It's not totally clear, but from what I can tell, the automakers thought this was toeing the line, and they were within the letter of the law, though pushing it to get the most performance they could under the Clean Air Act. The EPA responded by saying to cut it out and they all did. I have another news account from the same 1972 or 1973 that says the EPA told VW the same thing.

It's important to understand that defeat devices have existed as long as these regulations have been in force. This new VW case is special, as USA Today said, "Automakers are all under pressure to get the best fuel economy scores for the lowest price, but it's very unlikely others have gone as far as Volkswagen to make vehicles illegally pass emissions standards, auto industry experts say." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the 1990s and 2015 cases are almost identical. The only difference I can see is that the former related to trucks and the latter related to cars. Biscuittin (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, you're right, the truck case is nearly identical, from what I've seen. I was more concerned with the light duty passenger vehicle cases, which were making it seem like VW was the only defeat device offender; that's why I nominated the redirect defeat device for deletion and removed this because it isolated VW's actions, without the context of almost every other automaker having done the same thing. But yes, the truck thing should be mentioned here as a clear similar precedent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added a section "Precedents". As Volkswagen is not the only offender, should we change the article title to Diesel engine emissions violations? Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take Defeat device and turn it from a redirect to an article, covering the 1972 incidents going forward, so that all of the events can be seen on one page and shown in context. The current quantity of material on the VW TDI case is too large to be part of that -- I think the current article needs to stay. But a paragraph summarizing will serve to show the context we need. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added some headings. Biscuittin (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Volkswagen_emissions_scandal/Archive_1&oldid=1083350621"