This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The bone of contention that VW hasn't yet been found guilty of illegal acts, that they haven't been convicted in a court of law, has been dragging us down here. I added an explanation of a Notice of Violation with citations from the EPA and the aptly titled book "Federal Pollution Control Laws: How are They Enforced?" The EPA autonomously determines that a company has violated the civil code and autonomously issues orders to take corrective action. Judicial Actions, in contrast, require the Justice Department to act as prosecutor and take the violator to court, where their guilt is decided. I guess this might come as a surprise to some but that is in fact how agencies like the EPA enforce the law. There are opinions flying around that this is wrong and bad, for lack of transparency (from the left, e.g. Elizabeth Warren) or abuse of beleaguered capitalists by government overreach (from the right; The Economist). But those opinions are neither here nor there. As far as this article is concerned, legal fact is that VW has been found to have acted illegally. They could appeal, but the legal finding has been made.
You could have also deduced this from the many, many news articles, from sober NPR and NYT and Reuters and many others, known for their gravitas, who say in their own voice that VW's actions were illegal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We can't be judge and jury, Dennis. Let's use the language of the EPA, who allege illegality. Of course a layperson can say something is illegal, especially if they are quite sure of their facts. But it's up to the justice system to determine guilt. Why not just stick to the facts as established? They are surely damning enough without pretending that there has been some legal process. In any case, that seems to be in the pipeline - all we have to do is wait. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not up to the "justice system" to determine guilt. Again, you stubbornly refuse to admit the facts which have been placed before you. I have provided citations which show that the EPA acts autonomously in this instance. The EPA has their own internal judges. Please stop forcing others to disprove your false assertions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You miss my point. A policeman will make a determination of illegality, based on evidence before them, but it is up to the justice system to have the final say. You may not have heard of the "presumption of innocence", but it is a fundamental point in legal proceedings. Alleging illegal behaviour is quite different to a court making a judgement of same. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to cannot accuse VW of illegal activity when they have not had a chance to defend themselves in court. We can only say they were accused and who is accusing them. To anyone who disagrees, you may be glad of Wikipedia's policies if you are ever accused of a crime. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
First, a Notice of Violation is not a criminal matter, it is civil. Second, this is not a living person, it is a company. We have clearly said no VW people have at this time been charged with a crime; that investigation is still pending. Third, the fact that the law was broken was established by the EPA's non-judicial process. They way you recite this innocent-until-proven-guilty script, it sounds as if you have not read the explanation of a Notice of Violation or the sources [1][2][3]. The EPA operates autonomously. Do you have a problem with this facts? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We can use wikipolicy to solve the problem. Do you know what it is? --Pete (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Is caught too informal?
I don't really care about winning a formality contest, but if you think "caught" is too informal a word to describe what the EPA did to Volkswagen, then you need replace it with a more formal word that means the same thing. "Revealed" for example, merely means to uncover something. Telescopes reveal distant star stars. It in no way implies that a miscreant was deliberately hiding their wrongdoing until confronted with evidence. Copious sources revealed that VW did in fact spend 15 months evading the truth, telling lies and equivocations when confronted with the evidence of their deliberate action. They made a formal admission of guilt only after they were cornered and given no alternative. That's where the phrase "caught red handed" means. "Revealed red handed"? Does not mean the same thing, nor does "found out". Volkswagen was not surprised when shown the truth; they knew it all along and were hiding it. They admitted this and a trail of evidence supports that. That's what it means when you catch a crook: they were trying to get away with it and couldn't because you caught them.
By all means use a "more formal" word if you like but you need to get out your thesaurus and find one that means the same thing. Exposed? Maybe, but they were caught by a law enforcement authority. If they news media had broken this, that would have been an expose. When law enforcement gets you, we call that getting caught.
When you say "caught is rather informal and colloquial" @Brandmeister:, it sounds like you are a stickler for correct language. Fair enough. If so, please check a dictionary and note that the word "caught" is neither a colloquialism, nor is it informal English. I find it maddening to have to confront this kind of "correction". It is a red herring argument used to support an erroneous change. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
"Caught" has cultural connotations and again is more of a short headline word than the most accurate word for what actually happened. The actions of the EPA and others were more scientific detective work, narrowing down Volkswagen's options until they had no choice but to reveal the truth. There was nothing sudden or surprising about it. Not unless you only learnt about the situation when it appeared on the front page of your morning paper and it seemed that it had all happened in a flash. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Caught means "brought to justice by law enforcement while attempting to hide wrongdoing and evade punishment." Can you cite a shred of evidence that "caught" has "cultural connotations"? What are "cultural connotations"? Can we not use dictionaries to tell us what words mean?
Your assertion that "The actions of the EPA and others were more scientific detective work, narrowing down Volkswagen's options until they had no choice but to reveal the truth" are false and I don't understand how you could not be aware they are false. It is true that the EPA carried out lab testing to discover the discrepancies, but they also did basic police work, that is they questioned the suspect. VW then proceeded to lie. They falsely claimed that the discrepancies were due to testing errors or local atmospheric conditions. The EPA had to repeatedly press them for the truth, and then threaten them with not certifying their cars. That is not scientific work, that is forcing a confession.
I believe you are making up imaginary facts to soft-peddle the case against VW. In every instance, you seek only to make it look less bad for them, and the justifications you give are patently false. Please cite something. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You mentioned a few such connotations above, Dennis! "Caught red-handed" was one you used. Please don't deny it. I'm not sure why you are uncomfortable with my description of the discovery of the truth as detective work. Seems to me that your description of lab testing, basic police work, questioning the suspect, and revealing the untruths through more testing is pretty much covered by "scientific detective work". You don't think that the EPA chased them down in the street, caught them red-handed, and interrogated the truth out of them? Perhaps some good-cop-bad-cop routine to force a confession? --Pete (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The only thing you do is spin the story in Volkswagen's favor, and you cite nothing to support your behavior. You have yet to cite one single independent source to justify your actions. "Caught red-handed" is an expression. So what? What is the problem with that? You cite zero independent evidence that this word is problematic; merely "I don't like it". I have already made clear what my problem is with "found to have used software to mislead US emissions testing". "Found" discounts the adversarial nature of the investigation against Volkswagen. You are trying to make is sound like a "scientific" inquiry. You say they merely 'mislead' testing, obscuring the fact that this is illegal, and that the were blatantly gaming the system. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you are trying to spin the story, Dennis. I'm seeing you as a crusader here, ignoring the facts, doing your best to use misleading terms, acting aggressively towards other editors. I've explained why "caught" is not the best word for the situation, but there are plenty of others we can use. You also seem to think that police were involved, They weren't. Volkswagen's wrongdoing was exposed through scientific testing, asking VW for explanations, and then testing those responses. Eventually Volkswagen was painted into a corner and had to admit that they had used software to mislead. It seems to have been a very methodical and scientific process. Again, do you think it was more like a police drama on television, maybe? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, see again you're filling this talk page with falsehoods. I have worked hard to treat Volkswagen fairly, for example to remove the redirect of defeat device to here, and working to put this violation in the context of similar violations by other companies. The 1973 VW fine was being presented out of the context of the Big 3 doing exactly the same thing, and I helped correct that. Please stop posting false statements on this talk page. It is disruptive to have to repeatedly disprove your absurd claims. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I call 'em as I see 'em. You seem to want to present the story in as dramatic a fashion as possible, using emotive language rather than the more measured, accurate, encyclopaedic language a reader would expect here. --Pete (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Where are your sources which tell the story the way you like? Not even one citation from you! I'm slavishly aping the most respected news media on Earth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's your problem right there. We're not a newspaper, we're an encyclopaedia, and we aim to present information without emotive, misleading language. You're trying to present this as a police pursuit, rather than the deliberate detective work of many months. Calm down - we don't have to sell copies of our articles, and we're not dependent on page-views to generate advertising revenue. --Pete (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Everything in this article is sourced to news media. If that is your problem you should head over to AfD. You have an emotive, misleading bent to make the article more favorable to Volkswagen. Your POV pushing is not under some special protection merely because you are ignoring news media sources. You have NO sources; only your own bias to drive you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Using reliable sources is what we do, Dennis. I have no problem there, nor do I think the article should be deleted. Far from it. Volkswagen has been found to be misleading consumers and regulators about emissions, and that's a serious charge, as reflected in the recent actions of the company and the certainty of lawsuits to come. Climate change and emissions are areas of considerable interest to our readers and this is a pertinent and useful article. What I object to is your attempt to mislead readers by presenting the story in a more dramatic and breathless fashion than it needs. Your attempt to present me as a company shill is more evidence of your wrongheadedness. Slow down, take a look at what I've written, rather than seeing your own preconceptions. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Informal? I don't know but it is unnecessarily emotive. Regardless of the sources using "cheat, caught, etc" we don't need to use such language. We have many articles about genocidal maniacs whom are rightfully referred to as such by RS yet we still maintain a neutral tone here as policy dictates. I don't see anyone here trying to defend VW's actions, but rather they are trying to ensure that the language we use is non imflammatory. Kneel behind Zod (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Where does this definition of "inflammatory language" come from? Wouldn't the language used by reputable, serious, mainstream media be what defines sober and appropriate language in the year 2015? The NYT, Boston Globe, WaPo, USA Today, CNBC, etc. do not use inflammatory language. They're not the Weekly World News or the Daily Mirror. I just don't like it doesn't define inflammatory language; our sources -- our best, most reputable sources -- tell us what is inflammatory. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We're not a media outlet, Dennis. We don't have to sell papers or pageviews. Your mother should have run you through this as a child when you asked her if you could go ride your bike in the snow because Johnnie does it, and she asked you if Johnnie rode his bike off a cliff would you do the same?
Wikipedia's preferred writing style is dead, flat, unemotional and painfully neutral. That's what works. That's what's made us successful. --Pete (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Your mother should have taught you not to be a sockpuppeting, stalking, harassing, edit warring m*********. Didn't she tell little Peter about range blocks, and topic bans, and ArbCom complaints? Your edits are not neutral: they consistently slant the story in a single direction, always to favor VW's image, never otherwise. You are pushing a specific POV and pretending it's neutrality because it's boring. Boring and neutral are not the same thing. My edits have been balanced between saving VW from unfair treatment, and stating in plain English their malfeasance.
Wikipedia is successful because it's the only place you can rely on to explain the plot of Lost and give you all the football scores. In spite of disruptive editors like you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we should focus on content, Dennis, rather than your feelings for me. If you have issues with me, either keep them to your ownself, or take them to WP:ANI. Your rantings aren't helpful.
Moving on, we can use other language beyond that used in media headlines to sell papers. We can be accurate about what Volkswagen did - without attempting to sugar-coat their poor behaviour - without using unduly emotive language. You could think about this. --Pete (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right. Whoever brought editors' mothers into this was a real dick, right? Something should be done about that guy.
Your POV pushing is unfair to VW's competitors who had to sell more expensive, worse performing diesels, or who lost sales of hybrid and electric cars from buyers who chose high-performance Clean [sic] Diesels instead. Your edits are not fair to the breathing public who suffered worse smog, and health problems, due to VWs law violations. Your edits are not fair to VW's employees and stockholders who suffered massive loss of reputation and value, and future sales, due to this reckless choice to break the law. One fifth of the German economy has been harmed; your edits are unfair to Germany. Your "boring" encyclopedic editing takes one side over the other and dresses that up in a false front of pseudo-neutrality. The Wikipedia term for that is tendentious editing. We should follow our sources; they tell us what is fair and neutral, not individual editor prejudice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You would benefit from taking a break from this article, to get a bit of perspective and to understand what apparently almost every other editor here is telling you. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have taken a break from editing the article. It was Skyring, Calidum, John, and Guy Macon who reverted the phrase "caught using software designed to illegally cheat" no less than 9 times in 10 hours. 3RR only applies to some, it seems. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Merit, authorship, main researcher or who started it all
Here in Spain, a Spanish industrial engineer called Vicente Franco is claimed to be the mastermind of the whole investigation. Mainstream sources include [4] and also [5], which are a national newspaper and the governmental TV.
Was Vicente Franco the main researcher here? He is cited in some sources of this article, connected to the ICCT, so the claim is not totally out of thin air. --31.177.99.26 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't read Spanisn, but the impetus of the reported discovery was from the research by WVU academics. But there is no reason that the discovery could have been found independently.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring involving multiple editors
A new listing has been filed on the edit warring noticeboard. It involves multiple editors working on this article. It also contains multiple errors, so perhaps Calidum, Guy Macon, and John could check the report involving their actions here for accuracy? --Pete (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It got closed with no action required, because nobody exceeded 3RR and several named editors (including me) made a single 1RR revert in accordance with WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Often an edit gets reverted multiple times by multiple editors making one revert each because the consensus is against the content of the edit. I suggest that Dennis start with WP:DRR next time. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
11 million cars affected and heads of development suspended
The new CEO of Volkswagen Müller said that the software, which was installed in 11 million cars, was only activated in a part of the 11 million cars.
Since the figure of 11 million cars was first published by Volkswagen itself and the article states the following: "The software, which was in use in 11 million of its cars worldwide, detected when cars were being lab tested for emissions, and turned on pollution controls that were normally inactive" it should be added in the article that the software was not activated in all of the 11 million vehicles, because "in use" means that it is actually used.
It would be nice if someone could answer to my other entries on this talk page: "interview with Peter Mock from ICCT" and "Use of defeat devices known since 2011" Ich901 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ich spreche keine Deutsche. Why not do it yourself, if it is sourced? --Pete (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to ask first before making changes to the article. The reuters article is written in English. Now I have added the information from the Spiegel article and the information from the Reuters article.Ich901 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
First Sentence is inaccurate
"...fraudulently pass US emissions tests for 11 million of its diesel engine Volkswagen and Audi cars..." VW never sold "11 million" cars, let alone 11 million Diesel cars in the USA during the relevant period. More correctly it should say "...500000 in the USA and, apparently, about 11 million similar cars subject to similar regulations in other jurisdictions.
I would change it, but don't normally change stuff from the main page.
Is the consensus of sources that the software was "designed to fraudulently pass" emissions tests? As in, VW created it specifically for that purpose, with intent? I don't see that in the NOV. I see that the EPA says that it does function as a prohibited defeat device, and that VW "knew or should have known" that it did so. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
SamC, based on the numerous articles I've ready, I believe it's abundantly clear that the majority of sources believe the software was specifically and deliberately manipulated. In one interview I heard, the engineer stated that VW not only had to write the software, they had to validate that the defeat device worked successfully. In other words, they had to put it through the dynamometer tests to prove it worked. — btphelps(talk to me) (what I've done) 05:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree It would be nice to find a source for that specific conclusion, as a matter of formality, but it's so glaringly obvious that I'm not going to challenge it, nor do I think it's likely to be challenged. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Accuracy of current content
As of this post, the article reads:
The action the EPA took against Volkswagen on September 18 is called a Notice of Violation, which is a type of Civil Enforcement Action carried out by US government agencies.[1] Civil Enforcement Actions are not judicial and involve no judicial process, in contrast to Judicial Actions, either civil or criminal, which would be filed by United States Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA.[2] In a Judicial Action the guilt of the accused is not established until the courtroom proceedings have been completed, while Civil Enforcement Actions are decided on the authority of the EPA alone, and result in either orders from the EPA, or consent agreements with the violator, to make some remedy, which in this case is the EPA's order to recall some 500,000 vehicles.[1][2][3] The Notice of Violation found Volkswagen to have broken US laws, including 42 U.S.C § 7401-7671, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), and 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.[1] The EPA's order to recall the cars is legally enforceable without need for legal process outside of the EPA itself.[3] In addition to the Notice of Violation, the US Department of Justice investigation could result in actual court filings against the company and possible criminal charges.[5]
I do not believe this is accurate. Can we have some eyes on this and discussion of the legal statements made in this paragraph please. Minor4th 23:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Certainly "The Notice of Violation found Volkswagen to have broken US laws" is wrong. As the EPA says:
"What is a Notice of Violation (NOV)?"
"A Notice of Violation or NOV is one step in EPA’s investigation and enforcement of violations of EPA statutes and regulations. A NOV notifies the recipient that EPA believes the recipient committed one or more violations and provides instructions for coming into compliance. "
"NOVs typically offer an opportunity for the recipient to discuss the their actions, including efforts to achieve compliance. NOVs are not a final EPA determination that a violation has occurred. EPA considers all appropriate information to determine the final enforcement response." -EPA FAQ
On September 18, 2015, the U.S. EPA and CARB served a Notice of Violation (NOV) on Volkswagen Group alleging that approximately 480,000 VW and Audi automobiles equipped with 2-litre TDI engines, and sold in the U.S. between 2009 and 2015, had an emissions-compliance "defeat device" installed.[1][30]
A "defeat device", in the form of specially written engine management unit firmware, detects "the position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration of the engine's operation, and barometric pressure"[31] when positioned on a dynomometer using the FTP-75 test schedule.[32] These criteria very closely match the EPA's required emissions testing protocol[31] which allowed the vehicle to comply with emissions regulations by properly activating all emissions control during testing. The EPA's NOV alleged that under normal driving conditions, the software suppressed the emissions controls, allowing the engine to produce more torque and get better fuel economy, at the expense of emitting up to 40 times more nitrogen oxides than allowed by law.[33]
OK then. Can anyone tell me why not one of the hundreds of articles about this topic have made any mention of when VW's court date is? There's lots and lots of stuff about how further fines and criminal charges are waiting on the Justice Department investigation, but according to the consensus of the editors here, the current EPA list of violations of the Clean Air act, the violations of42 U.S.C § 7401-7671, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), and 203(a)(1) and so on, are merely accusations. When will VW defend itself in court against the alleged violations of 42 U.S.C § 7401-7671, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B), and 203(a)(1)? What venue will this supposed court case happen in? Is it a secret? Why are Wikipedians the only ones who seem to be aware that VW could, theoretically, be found not guilty of these violations of the civil code? Any explanation? They could save billions if they could avoid the recall of 500,000 cars. Surely someone, somewhere would speculate on their chances of dodging a bullet in court, perhaps with a clever enough legal defense? Or a surprise witness? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound patronizing, but have you ever heard of the phrase "the wheels of justice spin slowly" before? In my educated opinion is that VW and the EPA (ignoring the other jurisdictions just for brevity's sake) will come to a negotiated settlement within a few months. VW will want to put this behind them. They are already in crisis mode to repair their reputation. Rest assured, this will all be cleared up and at some point the "alleged" stuff can be removed but I daresay we still won't demonize VW using emotive language. Or I personally wouldn't support that. On a side note, I've found some of the hyperbole made here against other editors to be downright distasteful and unhelpful. AFAICT no one is going to bat for VW and defending them or "whitewashing", "shill" etc. on this talk page. I'm certainly not defending VW's actions and am personally angry that anyone thought they could get away with this alleged act, much less attempt it. But I've tempered my displeasure and expect everyone here to try as well. What is the goal here? If it is to write an informative article then you're in the right place. If anyone is here to push an agenda, either pro/anti VW then they should reconsider why they are here in the first place.Kneel behind Zod (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(Edit Conlict) Kneel behind Zod, the answer to the question you are trying to address is that an EPA NOV is simply not what Dennis Bratland claims it is. There is no penalty attached to a NOV, and because of this there is no way that any allegation on any NOV can end up in court unless the EPA takes further legal action (an administrative sanction, if I remember correctly) that contains the same allegations found in the NOV. Dennis Bratland is well aware of this, because it was explained to him in Notecardforfree's post of 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC), which I will now reproduce for convenience.
"Dennis Bratland, an EPA NOV is not reviewable under the APA (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)) because they only include allegations, rather than legal conclusions. Courts have consistently explained that “[The agency’s] initial ‘finding’ marks only the beginning of a process designed to test the accuracy of the agency’s initial conclusions.” (Sierra Club v. EPA, 557 F.3d 401, 408 (6th Cir. 2009) (modified language in original).) This recent Fifth Circuit opinion described NOVs as "intermediate," "inconclusive" documents and explained that "a notice does not itself determine [a party's] rights or obligations, and no legal consequences flow from the issuance of the notice." Therefore, we should still use the word "accused" or "alleged" when describing any wrongdoing on the part of VW."
Thus Dennis Bratland's statements such as "Can anyone tell me why not one of the hundreds of articles about this topic have made any mention of when VW's court date is" are a red herring in the pursuit of blackwashing, because, as Notecardforfree explained above, an EPA NOV is not reviewable in a court of law because no legal consequences flow from the issuance of an EPA NOV, leaving the court with nothing to do if it took the case. What would the judge rule? Would she rule "this court finds that the NOV which has no legal consequences is upheld, and thus there are no legal consequences" or would she rule "this court finds that the NOV which has no legal consequences is overturned, and thus there are no legal consequences"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who reviews the hundreds of articles written about this will find that Wikipedia has created a unique artifact. The rest of the world, and especially the highest-quality, most reputable sources, have told this story in one way. Wikipedia has told this story in a completely different way. What you guys have written here doesn't correlate with anything outside your own insular world. You have gone from verifiability to original research because you don't like what the sources say, so instead you made up your own version.
You are forced to dump secondary sources, because they don't say what you want them to say, and instead recite the law code, and court documents, and give your own interpretation of these primary sources to suit your narrative. This violates WP:PRIMARY. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
So that's a no then. You can't find a single mention anywhere in the known universe of any plans to decide in court if VW is guilty of the charges in the NOV. Weird. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, hey look! At last one website uses the same tone and phrasing as the lead of this article: "On September 18, 2015, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG received notice from the US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Justice and the California Air Resources Board informing VW that those agencies had determined that certain of our 2.0L 4-cylinder TDI vehicles do not comply with applicable emissions standards." I'm forced to admit there is now ONE source who shares Wikipedia's approach to this topic. Congratulations? I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The information in this law review article is a little dated, but on page 72 it gives a good overview of how the process will go forward from here. In a nutshell, the EPA can issue administrative sanctions 30 days after issuing the NOV, but the EPA must first provide an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to sections 554 and 556 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The CAA is a strict liability statute, so I'm not sure what VW's strategy will be, but I think there is a high probability we will see a settlement. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
VW gets an administrative hearing if they want one, before none other than the EPA itself, where they ask the EPA to reconsider its own decision. They will not go before a judge, there is not going to be a trial, and they are not going to court. Just like I tried to say. The law review article highlights this on page 73: " Under the 1977 version of the CAA, section 113 did not provide for administrative penalties. This meant that, in order to impose penalties against a violator, EPA had to commence civil judicial action in a federal district court. This also meant that EPA had to rely upon the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to prosecute the civil judicial actions... The 1990 amendments to the CAA addressed this problem by scrapping old subsection 113(d) (Final compliance orders)and by authorizing EPA to impose administrative penalties under new subsection 113(d) titled Administrative assessment of civil penalties." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If VW does not settle, and if they request a hearing, then there will be an administrative adjudication held before an administrative law judge. If VW does not prevail at that proceeding, they can then appeal to an Article III court. However, we should wait until there is (i) an adjudication at the administrative level, or (ii) administrative sanctions before we state in the article that VW was found liable for violating the CAA. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That is totally different from the innoncent-until-proven-guilty formula we'd apply to a person accused of a crime. There are media articles that speculate wildly about the future of green energy and electric cars and will diesel be gone forever because of this scandal. But no speculation about whether VW will prevail in court. NO statements saying, "If VW is convicted..." or "Pending the outcome a their trial..." No qualifications saying that they are waiting for judgement on whether they are guilty of violating the law. Only Wikipedia presents this story that way. Nobody else. That completely upends the entire concept of how Wikipedia is supposed to be written. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that the words "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial" (see WP:ALLEGED). In the RFC above, we discussed how sources covering this story state that VW is "accused" of violations or that VW is "alleged" to have violated the CAA, not that they have been found liable. I personally find administrative law scintillating, but I don't think many readers of major news outlets care about the arcane world of administrative tribunals. I think that's one reason why news outlets haven't discussed the future proceedings, but I also think that it is incredibly difficult to write informed journalism about EPA administrative procedures. In any event, I am simply saying that we should wait until a source reports that VW has been found liable. Until then, we should say they have been "accused" by state and federal agencies of wrongdoing. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Dennis right now VW is voluntarily (meaning without being forced by court order) negotiating with EPA about remedial measures to bring its vehicles within emmissions compliance standards. EPA has given VW until Oct 7 to make a comprehensive proposal for compliance. In the mean time, VW has taken some steps towards mitigation, and they are not contesting EPA's investigative findings. None of us has any idea at this point what the final outcome will be - as events take place we can add them to the article or make clarifications. what we cant do is leap to conclusions based on speculation - even if the media is doing that. Something about WP:CRYSTALBALL... Minor4th 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, I already said I'm fine with saying "alleged". The problem is with the mealy-mouthed, and totally original, unverifiable sentence: "Volkswagen AG was formally advised that, after fifteen months of investigation, it had been found to be using software designed to circumvent U.S. emissions tests". This hides several facts: 1) They were caught evading justice, not merely the recipients of information. 2) They cheated on emissions tests (or "gamed the tests" or "deliberately took advantage of their knowledge of how the tests are conducted and violated the intent of the testing to evade meeting legal requirements" which is a mouthful contained in the word "cheated"). 3) They violated the law. We can say 1, 2, and 3 are "alleged" but we must still say them; not rewrite them into a phony story about VW being given the interesting news of this fascinating new discovery, likey "Hey VW did you know they found water on Mars and we found your cars doing the funniest thing! Science!"
Minor4th, the facts above have already been established. The order to recall 500k cars has been given; it is not awaiting review or hearings and certainty not waiting a courtroom verdict. The only future proceedings are additional remedies and penalties beyond the finding that they broke several sections of the clean air act, and must carry out the recall.
Neutrality here means balancing different points of view. The two points of view are basically VW vs the victims of the subterfuge. VW has admitted 1, 2, and 3 above, so the POV found in the vast majority of media is the correct balance point. Wikipedia has staked out a lonely, unsupported point of view way far beyond what even VW has taken. Original research, POV pushing and novel synthesis. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I can grudgingly accept "In September 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency alleged that German automaker Volkswagen AG was using software designed to circumvent U.S. emissions tests for almost 500,000 of its model year 2009 through 2015 diesel engine Volkswagen and Audi cars." in this version but "circumvent" is a misleading word: it means "go around" and it implies selling cars by going around the tests, i.e. not being tested at all. The cars in fact could be tested all the live long day. The problem is that they defeated the purpose of the tests; to allow real-world pollution levels to be extrapolated from the lab tests. By creating a test-only mode, they cheated. So again, if we say the EPA alleged that VW used software to cheat on US emissions tests", we will be pretty close to the tone and emphasis of the majority of reliable sources.
I have to ask you to consider if you can feel good about writing a sentence that sounds like nothing else in our sources except the lead sentence of VW's own PR messaging. If you're channeling VW's damage control language, then are you neutral? Try to sound more like our cited sources. If you think our sources are taking the wrong tone, then you should reject them as reliable sources and nominate other sources to cite in their place. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Current title
The current title, "Volkswagen common-rail TDI diesel engine emissions controversy", looks too long, even when using AutoComplete. What about "test-rigging" or "emissions test" to replace bolded phrase? --George Ho (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the length. "Emissions test-rigging" works for me. "Emissions test" is too bland and deviates from the subject too much. I'd like to hear from the article creator, on his thoughts. Jusdafax 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Agree it's way too long, and even incorrect. The article makes no mention that this incident is a "controversy." The article and the main sources use the term "violation." The other descriptive words, "common-rail TDI diesel engine", are all unnecessary. I think a clear title like "Volkswagen emissions violation" is good enough. I'd avoid words like "scandal" or "deception" in the title since this isn't a tabloid article. --Light show (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Suggest Volkswagen diesel emissions violation, as the "diesel" part is a significant qualifier. Normally, I'd say these are allegations, but the strong admissions by company officers suggest no controversy. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
That's getting closer. Agree that diesel should be in the title. Jusdafax 18:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
But why bother, since it implies there may have been regular gasoline violations. As some similar violations have been reported in the past, which are general for car emissions, I'd keep the qualifier out. So far, only diesel has been investigated, but similar problems might later show up for regular gas cars. --Light show (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As the article creator, I lean in the other direction (but then, I am understandably biased). I have removed the word "diesel" from the title, because a TDI (as trademarked by and associated with Volkswagen AG) is by definition a diesel engine, and so could be considered redundant. Volkswagen has manufactured a large number of engines, both gasoline and diesel (and, recently, hybrid as well), but only certain diesel engines manufactured since the late 1990s as marketed with the "TDI" trademark. Out of those, the TDIs have used three injection system technologies: standard rotary multi-output injection pump, camshaft-driven pumpe-düse unit injection, and now common-rail injection. Only the common-rail TDIs from VW are (currently) being submitted to the scrutiny of the EPA and CARB. As for whether the affair is a controversy (or not), Volkswagen AG is facing at least one class-action lawsuit, congressional hearings, additional scrutiny from regulators in its home country of Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and possibly the largest fine for Clean-Air Act violations in history. VW also lost 20% of its market cap in a matter of minutes/hours (on the first standard day of trading after the Notice of Violation became public) and has stopped sales of said TDI vehicles. The repercussions of VW's actions to themselves and to the wider automotive industry as a whole (i.e., "What does the future of diesel-powered automobiles look like in the US and elsewhere?") are currently being heavily discussed by a multitude of media outlets, and users of web forums dedicated to TDI and other diesel products are talking about the issue non-stop. If that does not make a controversy, I don't know what does... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adams kevin (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 September 2015
The only reason you need all these qualifiers is if you have a half dozen other VW emissions scandal articles and you need to specify that this article is about the TDI engines -- and then if you've got more than one VW TDI emissions scandal so you need to be clear that this is the one with common rail engines. But that's not the case. All the article title needs is WW, emissions, scandal and maybe diesel. If VW has more emissions scandals later, we can rethink the titles to distinguish them, but for now you don't need it.
This principle is explained in WP:PRECISION, the article title policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Another relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME given that no one else is referring to this a "common-rail TDI" event. A number of organizations appear to be going with Volkswagen emissions scandal (e.g. [6] and [7]). I think that adding the "diesel" modifier is more precise without getting overly detailed, but an argument for leaving it out entirely can be made. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Only the discussions about the "future of diesel-powered automobiles," are controversial. And civil cases haven't been filed, but the article isn't about any future class-action cases. Both those issues are almost irrelevant to the article now, which is about a "scandal" or "violation."
Another question related to the title is how many other emission violations Volkswagen has been involved in? I don't recall any others. So the qualifiers "common-rail TDI engine" would only serve to confuse readers, of which only about 1 in a million might know what that was. As for the use of the word "scandal," it's well sourced and newsworthy, however the word is not a synonym for "violation." You can have one without the other. I think "violation" is both more general and neutral. But the source or cause of the the violation, i.e. scandal, cheating, rigging, etc., can be covered in the article. Also note that the intentional cause of the violation is not what they would be fined for. It's the violation that's the key civil issue. It's not a criminal case. So I still lean to Volkswagen emissions violation for a title. The lead sentence can explain that it was caused by the scandal, or whatever. --Light show (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The NY Times 5 minutes ago stated, "The violations described by the EPA could, in theory, total about $18 billion." --Light show (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I changed the title to Volkswagen emissions violation, but I wasn't aware of the ongoing RM that proposes using "scandal". --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Is “violations” best choice? Although constituting an actual violation, it’s rather a cheat/fraud/deception/misdirection/scandal/affair that entailed violations. -- Gohnarch░ 10:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is easy to find speculation about what might happen next, some of it even well-sourced. We should resist the temptation to include it here, unless it looks like it will still be in the article in a year or two. I removed a section on the possible effect on sales of diesel vehicles on that basis. --John (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL says nothing about limiting content in an otherwise valid article. WP:CRYSTAL is about avoiding articles about the future that are unverifiable: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." Can anyone point to one word in WP:CRYSTAL that says we can't have a sub-section in an article with this properly attributed expert opinion, analysis, and speculation?
This is not an article about a future event. Nothing in WP:CRYSTAL says you can't have a section that is essentially a critical response section. What are the opinions from recognized experts about what this whole VW scandal means? What do experts think is likely to happen next? Who or what do experts think will benefit or be harmed by the VW scandal? What do experts think was the likely root cause of the scandal?
It's critical that we explicitly attribute these opinions, and rely on direct quotes in most cases, and this should not be the main meat of any article, but rather a section near the end. Many featured articles have sections near the end where we quote expert opinions about whether the film was any good or what influence the event had on the course of history.
I don't think the single quote from Elon Musk should be put back in its current form; a proper critical response does not cite only one individual's opinion. The section should be put back, but with a representative samling from a cross-section of important experts in this field who cover all major points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Archived
I've gone ahead and archived some of the discussions here. Feel free to re-add the discussions which you think needs to be here. Also, I've added a template parameter for auto archiving once in 14 days. Hope this helps. Regards—☮JAaron95Talk 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A little context, please
I think the article needs some context and balance. Amid all the charges and hullabaloo, what percent was the VW Diesel TDI engine among all U.S. car sales during the period? What percent of consumers are really affected by this incident?
Having sold almost 500,000 cars equipped with the TDI diesel engine from 2007 to 2015 sounds like a lot, but according to Statista, 7,780,710 vehicles were sold in all of the U.S. during in 2013, and according to a VW press release for 2013, VW sold "more than 100,000 TDI Clean Diesel vehicles in the US between its VW and Audi brands this year. According to VW, that means it is responsible for more than 75 percent of diesel-engined cars and SUVs sold here." Selling 100,000 vehicles works out to 1.3% of all U.S. car sales. And while VW claims to have 75% of the clean diesel market share, the web site Statista reports that 442,658 clean diesels were sold in the U.S. during 2013, making VW's portion only 22.5% of all clean diesel sales.
There have also been previous emissions cheats that involved about 500k cars, yet no CEOs resigned and no company's stock plunged 35%. This is only 1.3% of cars but their NOx output was equal to 30+ times as many cars. I agree we should include all these statistics because we should help illustrate why this story has an outsized impact, even though other companies have done almost the same thing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the effect was magnified by public ignorance of the facts and by sensationalising the story. If carbon emission testing had been circumvented, then yes, it would be a huge scandal, given the sensitivity of climate change and the public awareness of CO2 etc. But NOx, not so much. I think many people read the story as "All Volkswagen cars emit 40 times as much pollutants as they should because the car company cheated." It's like a run on the banks. Little things get blown up out of proportion and the effects snowball. My own understanding of the story was wrong, and it wasn't until I looked into it carefully that I gained a better idea of what had happened. Wikipedia should strive to present current events accurately without making them sound more sensational than they really are. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Do any sources share your opinion? I'm not aware of any experts who think anything of the kind. It seems extraordinary for VW's CEO to throw in the towel over a mere public image problem. We need to guard against letting this kind of personal analysts seep into the article lacking quality sources we can attribute to. Having a lead sentence that matched almost word for word VW's PR website was an embarrassment we shouldn't repeat. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It is quite plain, on reading the reactions of consumers, that many are incorrect in their perceptions. Volkswagen's CO2 emissions across their range of vehicles are compliant, but that is not the common perception. Read this article on the public response, including many comments from readers, and note that not once is NOx mentioned. But carbon and CO2 gets quite a few mentions. --Pete (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. The consumers selectively quoted (is not a scientific survey of public opinion but whatever) are correct. Your own understanding is faulty. Diesels do offer lower greenhouse gas emissions by virtue of their good fuel economy. But the poor NOx pollution was a deal breaker until VW found a way to have the best of both worlds -- low GHG without all the NOx. And to have your cake and eat it too-- snappy performance. So while the excess NOx didn't contribute to global warming, the environmental intents of these clean diesel buyers were well founded. The problem was it was too good to be true. VW's sham set back progress toward real low-GHG solutions like hybrid, electric, mass transit, etc.
I certainly welcome you to cite any expert who shares your theory that this is overblown media sensationalism. All major points of view should be represented, but not your private theory.Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you are giving car buyers loftier motives than are reasonable. Diesels are popular, not so much because of their environmental benefits, but because of the fuel cost. The last three rental cars I drove in Europe within the past twelve months (a Jaguar, Skoda, and Mercedes) were all diesel. Here in Australia, ULP and diesel are more on a par, and consequently diesel-engined vehicles are less popular. Ten years ago, diesel was significantly cheaper and consequently more popular. I don't think car owners care too much about NOx emissions. They are rarely the subject of media articles. As opposed to carbon emissions, which are an everyday front page topic. It seems clear to me that the general public were misinformed about the true nature of the situation, and the comments to online media make this abundantly clear: they thought VWs were pumping out far more carbon than was legal. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Your guesses as to what the public thought based on your selective sampling of online comments are unscientific and violate WP:NOR. You're also failing to take into account the vast difference is diesel popularity between the US and Europe, due to different environmental goals and attitudes. This is all very off-topic per WP:NOTFORUM. If you could cite any sources who think there is an element of overhype or media sensationalism at work here, we would have a good reason to continue with this line of discussion. Maybe go work on finding those missing citations rather than fritter away time on talk page debate? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of wasting time… --Pete (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Date format for German company cracking the Yank market
Date formats are a mess in this article, with a mix of international (27 September 2015) and US (Sepember 26, 2015) formats. As per WP:MOSDATE, we should choose one format and stick with it throughout. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Do editors have a preference? The car company is German, and normally we'd use day-month-year for an article about Volkswagen as a European carmaker. But there is a strong US connection, which would lead us to month-year-day. We can go either way, but we really should handle date formats in a uniform fashion. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The unconformity extends to the very first version of this article, where both formats are used! The edit note tells us that the material was moved from Turbocharged direct injection and that article about European engine development has always used international date formats. In addition, I'm seeing an increasingly international flavour to this article, with regulatory authorities around the world looking into Volkswagen's activities in their jurisdictions, so I'm inclined to use international format throughout this article as well. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems I'm the only editor interested in this. It's been three days, I'll take that as a sign that I can wikignome my way through the article. More photos would be good, BTW. --Pete (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I, too, lean towards a day-month-year format. The timeline in particular needs attention. Sb2s3 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position here, but I consider it unfair that if a topic involves multiple countries (i.e. is international), some people just default to thinking "DMY all the way". Dustin(talk) 20:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put it into dmy for now. It is easy enough to align to mdy if that is people's preference. --John (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Minor issue: as it stands now, the timeline box is slightly too narrow to accommodate a full DMY line without breaking a paragraph (see especially towards the end). Is it possible to slightly 'extend' the width of the box? Sb2s3 (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I've changed to a short date format. Full month names are preferred for text, shorter formats, including ISO are good for tables etc. Still a little long for the width, but better than before. --Pete (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Bild used as a reference
Bild is used as reference Nr. 57 in this article. Bild is widely regarded as a tabloid and not allowed as a source in the German version of Wikipedia. I changed the "newspaper" to "tabloid". Shouldn't a proper source be used for the claim that Bosch warned VW in 2007 in a letter about illegal use of the software. I think VW has not officially aproved this yet. I don't know if this letter is made public already. Ich901 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing that is sourced only to Bild should appear in this article. If it is worth reporting, it will be in better sources. --John (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Greenwashing
In response to this edit, I am providing these links.
Translation of introductory sentence: The cheating by Volkswagen on the ecological quality of its vehicles is a textbook case of the greenwashing practiced by numerous businesses.
Source 2: Reprint of an editorial from Bloomberg[8] with added "greanwashing headline. No mention of greenwashing in original source.
Source 3: Reprint of an editorial from IMD[9] with added "greanwashing headline. Greenwashing is mentioned in original source.
Source 4: Cannot evaluate; French language.
Source 5: Greenpeace is not a reliable source on whether a company is greenwashing.
On Wikipedia, editorial opinions are not sufficient to justify category inclusion. We also need to be careful to avoid both whitewashing and blackwashing in this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
We should note that numerous sources say that VW buyers feel "betrayed" because the cars were falsely marketed as green. The two most similar cases, the GM cars that polluted when the heat or AC was on, and the 7 brands of heavy trucks that started polluting after 20 minutes, were not marketed this way. Buyers of a 1991 4.7L V8 Cadillac Seville are not likely to be environmentally conscious and I can't find any news stories expressing any outrage over the recall of 470,000 Cadillacs in 1996. The buyers of long haul trucks also didn't express any sense of betrayal; rather they appreciated the better fuel economy for moving goods from A to B at the lowest cost, and were probably sorry they had to give that up in the recall. Some Republicans in Congress were opposed to large fines against the 7 truck makers, associating the enforcement with the Clinton-Gore administration; many assumed that when Bush took over the case would be scuttled.[10][11] But no widespread shock or sense of betrayal for phony green cred; no CEOs resigning and no plunging stock prices.
Just something to keep in mind when illustrating the similarities and differences between this case and previous cases. Nearly identical in the functional details yet perceived differently because of prior expectations of what the vehicles were supposed to be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Stock fall
The article states "On 21 September 2015 the first day of trading after the EPA's Notice of Violation to Volkswagen became public, share prices of Volkswagen AG plunged 20% on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. On 22 September, the stock fell another 12% for a 2-day cumulative decline of 32%."
This is mathematically inconsistent. If the price fell 20% one day and 12% the next day, the total decrease over the two days is 29.6%, not 32%. Furthermore, the cited source for the first day actually says it fell 23%, not 20%. Mnudelman (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is unsatisfactory. The use of "plunged" is another indication that this article is still not compliant with WP:NPOV. This article cannot be a tabloid hatchet piece. It may be better to remove this section completely until it can be properly sourced and properly written. --John (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Volkswagen AG (VOW.DE) Adjusted Close from September 14, 2015 through September 30, 2015 with volume shown by line thickness.
There's lots of ways you can calculate it. I think lots of media reports were using percentage loss the closing price on Friday the 18th to the day's low on Monday the 21st. You'd have to calculate each one to verify. Here's a graph that compares the day to day adjusted close, showing percent change from the previous day, and the day's volume. Here's my data:
September 14, 2015
September 15, 2015
September 16, 2015
September 17, 2015
September 18, 2015
September 21, 2015
September 22, 2015
September 23, 2015
September 24, 2015
September 25, 2015
September 28, 2015
September 29, 2015
September 30, 2015
Adj Close
166
167
168
167
161
134
111
119
119
116
107
103
105
%diff in Adj Close from prev.
0.82%
0.39%
-0.06%
-3.61%
-17.14%
-16.83%
6.92%
0.00%
-2.82%
-7.31%
-3.55%
1.60%
Volume
31,800
41,800
58,400
60,600
112,700
1,496,700
3,058,700
2,381,300
1,542,800
880,700
865,400
513,700
416,500
If anyone would like to use a different set of data or different range of dates or something, let me know and I'll whip something up. Just keep in mind that how you present this data will put some kind of spin on it. There's no avoiding it so I'd just aim for about the same tone as the better-quality sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Volkswagen AG (VOW.DE) Adjusted Close. Top is percent change from September 17, 2015 close through September 30, 2015 with volume shown by line thickness. Here is the same data, but the top shows the percent change -- cumulative-- as a percentage of the 9/17/2015 close. This is where they get the "20% drop" on the 21st, increasing (cumulatively) to a 33.57% (or rounded to 32% or 35% depending on your inclination...) drop by the 22nd. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain the role of Vicente Franco in the whole thing?
According to a Google research and the linked sources he's just a team member, but you seem to believe that he's produced all the evidence by himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.165.193 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have seen him on the spanish national TV. It seems that he's using the whole thing to jump start his career. Somehow you get the idea that he's the mastermind of the whole thing. --87.216.165.193 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I am removing his name from the article body (but not from the notes). Unless someone finds a reliable source about whether he was a central figure or not, I suppose it shouldn't be included back. I have the impression that the Spanish media were interviewing him because he's from Spain. Notice that the ICCT publication mentioning his name are AFTER the whole thing hit the news.
I find the phrasing previously used in the lead"emitting up to 35 times greater pollution in real world driving", misleading. VW TDi emissions are generally within the US legal standards. With one exception: nitrogen oxides (NOx). It is important that we be precise in our wording, lest we give a false impression. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT! You're one of ones who keeps rewriting it. Several previous versions of the lead were perfectly clear on this point but for some reason you and a crowd of editors whose only job in life is to water down the lead section have worked overtime to make it as vague as possible. This entire case -- this whole article -- has always been about NOx, not CO, not CO2, not HC, and not soot. It is of course critical to make very clear that the whole problem that kicked it all off was that NOx was within standards in the lab, and up to 35 times greater in real world driving. It's not that hard to just say that.
So yes, by all means, let's make it say that and then stop fussing with it. I don't even know why we need to sit here and discuss this point. This is all uncontroversial everywhere except here, where a false equivalency is being created by editors unconcerned with points of view that are verifiable in our sources. Just fix the thing and move on to something productive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I like to think that editing Wikipedia is productive (as opposed to mowing the lawn or fixing the windows, as per my wife's view of things) but it's good to hear we're on the same page. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Hello. Have you read Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations 1948 Human? In a rough language: Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial where all the guarantees necessary for his defense have been provided him. Good Sunday. -- Paul.schrepfer (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Volkswagen doesn't have any human rights because it's a company, not a person, and the company hasn't been charged with any criminal offenses, only civil violations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Emissions expert needed
I transferred this essay out of a maintenance tag on the main page:
"Please clearly explain emissions characteristics of diesel engines vs gasoline, what NOx emissions are and are not, what are the health and environmental effects. What was unique about VW TDI diesel technology? What were the health and environmental effects, both perceived before this scandal and revealed after scandal broke? Please clarify how the EPA regulates NO2 as "surrogate" for the family of NOx gases"
If we are mentioning similar events from the 70s, then we should include similar events from the 2010s. For consistency and context. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend a fairly low emphasis on the 70s. In fact I wouldn't bother at all, everything was different then. For example, blowing fresh air into the exhaust was an acceptable solution to passing those tests that were based on exhaust volume.Greglocock (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You're talking about air pumps? Secondary air injection? They added oxygen to the exhaust so that unburned hydrocarbon would ignite and be converted to H2O and CO2 rather than exit the tailpipe as HC. Increased exhaust temperatures also aided catalytic converter efficiency. Air injection fails to really address greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn't improve overall efficiency, but it's an otherwise adequate method of reducing pollution. Implying that air pumps merely gamed the test by changing the relative volumes of pollution to air is incorrect.
What was different about the 70s was that you didn't have whole sectors of the market consisting of green buyers, who choose between a Prius and a TDI diesel based on which has the overall best green cred. In the 70s car buyers weren't feeling deceived because of temperature switches that enriched fuel mixture. As with the Cadillac in the 1990s, these EPA actions didn't harm the car company's brand. Many consumers only saw the EPA as the enemy and only minded when their car got caught cheating. So in that sense I agree the 70s were a different time, but not for the reason you give. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No my (Australian spec) Toyota Corona had an air pump and no cat, and the carbie system from hell. The air pump was purely there to add volume. From memory it was on the palette of possibilities to wriggle through emissions in some markets through the early 80s as well. Greglocock (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Secondary air injection explains the chronology of that. Air pumps were first there mainly to combust HC, and later, as efficiency increased, to raise exhaust temperatures. But, you know, this "purely there to add volume" theory of yours is kind of cool to me. If only it were true; I thinks it makes a good story. One obvious reason I know it's not true is the volume of air pushed by the pumps is a fraction of the volume of even a small car's exhaust. A 2 liter car moves 2 liters of air, compressed at 8:1 or 9:1 or more, every cycle. A pump that could approach that enough to dilute your pollution would approach the same size as your engine. Never work.
But I've been wrong before and I think this is a cool theory. If you've got any evidence, please go and rewrite Secondary air injection. It would make a rollicking tale and I hope I'm wrong and you're right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are right, it sounds like it was a no-cat HC/CO oxidiser system having read the article. Greglocock (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of that article. If you test a car on a different test regime I'd expect a different result. Admittedly a factor of 14 is an indication that something is screwy, but Volvo are claiming bad car (perhaps somebody should be looking at variability for a given model, there seems to be a lot of excuses like that). For instance in the WVU report the X5 failed pretty badly on one test route despite doing so well on the other 4. Eyeballing the result it looks as though scores are 2-3 times higher on the WLTC test.Greglocock (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
PEMS
What's with the edit-warring over the PEMS being mentioned in the lead? The fact that a portable emissions measurement system existed at all was the fact that cracked this case open. Without the on-road testing, Volkswagen would still be deemed compliant, and none of these appalling consequences would have flowed. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Consequences for VW advertising in the United States
Someone might want to include the consequences on VWs advertising in the United States. I am not sure which of the aspects mentioned in this article are relevant enough for the article.
Replaced by a Halloween costume and seemingly an increase in commercials by other car companies? TGCP (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
PR Newswire
Looking at this series of edits, I find the sourcing is something called "PR Newswire" a press release distribution service which anybody may join for a fee to get their message out. This doesn't sound like a reliable source to me. This sounds like something that could be easily misused by activists to promote their propaganda. If the story we're sourcing actually comes from an actual media outlet, then why not simply use that outlet as a source? --Pete (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree It would be nice to find a source for that specific conclusion, as a matter of formality, but it's so glaringly obvious that I'm not going to challenge it, nor do I think it's likely to be challenged. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
