Talk:Dodge Dart/Archive 1

Editing Dodge Dart

I've begun cleaning up facts, correcting chronology and filling in the blank areas as far as year-to-year mechanical and design changes, equipment availability, etc. Too much reliance on "Standard Catalog" is dangerous; large swaths of it are poorly researched. Let's strive for the highest possible information quality here, rather than just repeating what's already been written regardless of its veracity. Scheinwerfermann 22:35, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Beg to differ with you the Standard Catalog series. And in using it and citing it at least thaere is a source that can be looked up and verified. If you feel the books aren't of value, then I invite you to state where they are incorrect and then provide the cite material so others can verify your information Stude62 13:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Standard Catalog series contains a great deal of good information, but it is far from flawless. You are seeing here one of the basic flaws of any effort to retell a sequence of events long after they occur: Once a fact (or factoid) gets printed, it gets repeated and cited as authoritative regardless of its veracity. "Collectible Automobile" does a very good job of striving for high-quality information in their articles; they go to primary sources whenever possible. However, they also frequently fill in articles with stuff from "Standard Catalog" and similar sources. Errors are thus propagated and imbued with increased levels of baseless veracity. I emphasize my intent is not to deride "Standard Catalog" or "Collectible Automobile" as useless or fatally flawed or riddled with errors or anything of the sort, but a statement's inclusion in those publications does *not* necessarily imply genuine veracity.

The source of my information? Primarily, it's the US and Canadian headlamp regulation record. Not just the official rules released; those would be pretty useless in this case. Rather, I'm looking at the correspondence and petitions and requests for consideration that went back and forth between industry and DOT. Rectangular lamps don't even appear on the industry want-list until 1969; the 1967 Dart design would've been largely completed by mid '64 or so, and final tweaking would've been done by mid '65. Furthermore, the rectangular headlamps Chrysler insiders began thinking about proposing for Federal approval in the late 1960s wouldn't have come even slightly close to fitting the available width in the '67-'69 Dart's pushed-forward headlamp area, for they were the same 240mm-wide by 130mm-tall oblong units we see in the Argentine and Spanish-built Darts and on some of the (North American) factory one-off display cars of 1970-1972. And, the 200mm-wide by 142mm-tall rectangular headlamps that were eventually approved in the mid 1970s (and which might well have been made to fit in the '67 Dart's headlamp area) were designed and proposed entirely by GM, not by Chrysler. That design effort began in 1971. For all those reasons, the notion is dubious that the '67 Dart front end was designed originally for anticipated rectangular headlamps that were, at the last minute, suddenly not approved. Jeff Godshall is a former Chrysler stylist who will be able to shed some more light, as it were, on this topic when he returns home. For now, though, the preponderance of *real* evidence weighs against the notion of rectangular headlamps being an intended design element of the '67 Dart. For that reason, to err on the side of veracity, this disputed factoid should be left out of the article unless or until it can be authoritatively verified.

I note you removed the word "modern" from the description of the '67 Dart's concave backlight. I can see your point that this suggests POV; I was using the word in its architectural sense, which is concrete and not POV. However, you're right; most people will probably be unfamiliar with that use of the term and so I agree with its deletion. Scheinwerfermann 18:13, 9 March 2006 (EST)

The Headlamp Debate

Brossow: Your change from CID to cubed inches appears to be grammatically correct within Wiki, and that's great—thanks for making that change. But, it looks as if you're basing your reversion to Stude62's rectangular-headlamp text solely on his having pointed to a "Standard Catalog" article, parts of which were reprinted in "Collectible Automobile". My source (US headlamp regulatory records from NHTSA, the regulatory agency within the US Department of Transportation in charge of automotive headlamp specifications) is more authoritative, and is available to anyone by contacting NHTSA's library at their 400 7th St. NW headquarters in Washington, DC. These documents contain records of all industry petitions, requests and miscellaneous correspondence with NHTSA regarding automotive lighting—those denied as well as those approved. If you do intend to check this, do it fairly soon; NHTSA is moving to new headquarters in early 2007, and they intend to discard the whole of their paper archives predating 1987. I also note you're up on your Chevrolets, and that you've owned a couple Darts. That's terrific, but with all due respect, I have been very deeply involved with Darts, Valiants and the slant-6 for many, many years. Not just wrenching on them, either; I am fortunate enough to count among my friends and aquaintances several Chrysler Corp. engineers and designers who conceived these cars in the first place. That, sir, together with the NHTSA documents, is why I can be confident of my assertion in this dispute. Wikipedia is considerably less useful as a resource if we constrain it to nothing more than a compendium of material previously published in books and magazines available at your local public library. By analogy, it's unlikely the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica would be able, if asked, to supply for each article an exhaustive list of sources all of which are available at your local library or magazine stand. For that reason, disregarding for courtesy's sake the question of your authority vs. mine, your having forbidden me to correct a factual error is not in keeping with the intent of Wikipedia. Friendly regards, Scheinwerfermann 15:35, 13 March 2006 (EST)

A few notes:

• I didn't make the change to in³ — that was ApolloBoy. I agree with the change, to be sure, but it wasn't me.
• With regard to the more important issue, the rectangular headlamps, I believe you may have misread the statement you continue to delete without any published support for doing so:

(Chrysler stylists originally created the unique front end arrangement with the understanding that retangular headlights would be approved for automobiles in time for the cars debut; however, when the measure failed to be addressed the Dart was fitted with standard round hi/low units.)

Reading for content, you'll note that it states the front end was designed with the expectation that rectangular headlamps would be approved, which I believe we all agree did not happen. There's no argument on that point. However, the fact that rectangular headlamps were not approved in time for this design to be implemented in no way disproves the documented evidence that the original design included them instead of the round style that ultimately went into production. If I may make a timely analogy, I planned to take my kids to school this morning. However, due to snow conditions the schools are closed and so I did not take them to school. By your apparent logic, you would argue that I never intended to take my kids to school today. However, it was clearly my full intention to take them; forces beyond my control prevented it. Similarly, the documentation shows that Dodge engineers planned to use rectangular headlamps in the new Dart until forces beyond their control prevented them from so doing.

• With regard to your comparison of Wikipedia with Encyclopædia Britannica, I'd say it's a fair assumption that EB is not bound by such restrictions as the WP:NOR policy, which, for better or for worse, specifically prevents us from conductiing the original research you suggested and forces us to rely on previously published resources. I personally don't like it in the least, but it's one of the most important policies here at Wikipedia and we have no choice but to abide by it. Now, if you can find published evidence that shows Dodge design engineers never intended to use rectangular headlights at any point in the design process for the new Dart, I'm sure we'd all be more than happy to see it and put this thing to rest once and for all. Until then, however, we must allow published information to supercede unpublished personal knowledge per Wikipedia policy.

Please note that I'm in no way saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying that at Wikipedia — again for better or for worse — published information trumps everything else.

BTW, any chance I know you from the MML? Haven't been a list member in years but remember there was a big headlamp guy on the list. From your username here, I suspect it may be you. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 21:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point: Rectangular headlamps weren't just not approved in time for the release of the '67 Dart, they weren't even proposed by the US auto industry industry for government approval until a couple of years after the release of the '67 Dart. That's number one, and the primary reason why the rectangular-headlamp text does not belong in this article for now. I propose a compromise, which you may see in the article as it will stand approximately 45 seconds after I post this commentary.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you're talking about "unpublished personal knowledge" here. While I used my own personal knowledge and connections to verify what I read in the NHTSA documents, I've made the (published!) source of my information quite clear, and in my last comment on this page, I told you where you or anyone else can go to get it. Unfortunately for all of us, "published" doesn't necessarily imply easy or convenient access. It's obnoxious that the US Government makes it inconvenient to get access to certain of the information they publish, and I certainly wish it were possible to search the DOT's archive of published records more extensively than it is, but...it's not. Offhand, I can think of a dozen out-of-print books that are exceedingly difficult to find. Surely you wouldn't consider it reasonable to keep something from such a book out of Wiki simply because only one of us went to the expense and trouble of obtaining a copy. This situation is no different. It just happens that my affiliations and credentials have me spending a greater deal of time at DOT headquarters than most people do. Per the terms of NOR, I am citing a primary source, not creating one.

Regarding MML: Yes, I was a member many years ago, too, and I'm probably the one you're thinking of. Regards, Scheinwerfermann 17:27, 13 March 2006 (EST)

Spanish Darts

Hi. Just added the section about spanish Darts.

Not very sure about my english, so corrections are welcome.

I will try to get a contemporary picture of a spanish Dart, the quintesssencial spanish "rich man" car during the late 1960´s and early 1970´s. Nowadays, spanish Darts are cherished collector items. Randroide 15:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Diesel Darts

Hi, Scheinwerfermann.

Yes, the Dart Diesel mounted Simca 1000 tailights.

Please go to [1].

Scroll down until the black Dodge in front of a bull ring.

Just down of that picture there is a rear pic of a black Dodge Diesel. Look at the taillights and compare it with this

Text:

El Dodge Diesel. Aunque se presentó junto con la línea 69. Seguía usando el mismo frontal que la línea 66. Estaba destinado para profesionales principalmente, como podía ser el gremio del TAXI y demás. Apenas traía lujos, ni en el interior ni en el exterior. Como se puede ver en la fotografía, para diferenciarlo de su hermano de gasolina, se le instalaron los pilotos traseros del SIMCA 1000.

I restored this reference.

The Diesel was "humbler" because it was an sluggish, barebones car, designed for taxists and the like. They even drop the "Dodge Dart" from the name...but if you think that´s POV, I am not going to call the Diesel "humbler". Randroide 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Randroide. Thanks for the visual links—it seems there is an erroneous photo caption in "Los Dodge Españoles", then—thank you for the photo proof, you're correct, they certainly did mount those Simca 1000 taillamps on US 1963-1964 Dart rear sheetmetal to provide the red brake lights and amber turn signals required in Spain. See image of a US '63 Dart. I agree with your assessment of the diesel dart (very slow and not very fancy) but I think it would be better to be as specific as possible instead of just saying "humble". I will go and make some specific comments, see what you think, OK? --Scheinwerfermann 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed external links

Removed external links for section to section consistancy. Ab7fh 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored external links. They are valid, they do not violate Wikipedia guidelines and rules for external links, and there is no call for "section to section consistency" regarding presence or absence of external links. As carefully explained on your talk page, the problem is not with external links per se, it is with the specific site you want inserted on particular Ford articles. Dodge Dart is not the place to bring your crusade, and your removal of valid external links constitutes vandalism. Do not repeat it, or you will be reported to administrators for repeated vandalism. If you think you and the website you're seeking to promote are being unfairly singled out for harrassment, open a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles, where your complaint will receive the attention of a large number of editors who work on automotive articles. --Scheinwerfermann 04:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Demon

Dodge Demon redirects to Dodge Dart. I don't think this is appropriate as Dodge Demon is also a modern unrelated concept roadster. Netrat_msk (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked this. Dodge Demon now redirects to a disambiguation page, from which the reader can choose which Demon s/he wants to read about. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Phoenix

Why does the Dodge Phoenix divert here? As far as I can determine this is a completely seperate vehicle. --Falcadore (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodge Phoenix redirects here because that is the model name under which the 1960-1962 midsize Dodge Dart was sold in some markets outside North America, such as Australia and South Africa. The name "Phoenix" was drawn from the top-of-the-range 1960-'61 domestic Dart, and was kept for the export-market midsize Dodges after those cars were renamed (330/440, Coronet, etc.) in the domestic market for 1963. It gets a little complicated, because in certain years what was offered abroad as a "Dodge Phoenix" was in fact a rebadged Plymouth, not a rebadged Dodge. Such is the case with the 1968 Dodge Phoenix, for example. The Dodge Phoenix ought to have its own article with pointers in all the relevant domestic-model articles (Dodge Dart, Dodge 330/440, Dodge Coronet, Plymouth Belvedere, Plymouth Fury, etc.), but right now that is not the case. Would you like to be bold and start one? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically looking to identify this car for the article on the 1967 Gallaher 500 which identifies this car as a '63 model Dodge Phoenix. I could add such an article to the list of articles I'm working on but it might take some time to get there... --Falcadore (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That image does indeed show an Australian-market 1963 Dodge Phoenix, FWIW. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Until such time as a Phoenix page exists, I've redirected that '67 Bathurst link to the Belvedere so at least the links heads to a car like the actual car. --Falcadore (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)