Talk:Toyota/Archive 3

US autos illegal in Japan? Huh?

Can someone provide some evidence that US autos are not allowed to be sold in Japan, since this contradicts everything I've heard before? Ditto the no-US-factories rule. Davert (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not illegal but government laws were designed to make it highly unprofitable. Back in the mid 30's, the Ford and GM had factories in Japan and looked liked they were going to squash the fledging Japanese industry through sheer might (the downside of capitalism is that startups are disadvantaged). So Japan changed the laws so that any automobile producer had to have a majority of Japanese citizen ownership and imports were heavily taxed. Add a bit of Japanese pride (don't buy foreign), the unsuitability of large, thirsty American cars in a developing country and there you have it. Some of the laws and circumstances have since changed again but it is still highly unprofitable for foreign (non Japanese) manufacturers. Much easier to buy a stake in Japanese companies (eg GM and Isuzu, Chrysler and Mitsubishi). Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have no ojbection to that being placed in the appropriate place. That said, your clarification is appreciated by me at least; which doesn't change the fact that American cars are not illegal in Japan. Davert (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that my own BMW was imported from Japan driven by a Japanese person for over 15 years. Whether it was made in Japan or Germany I do not know. --Kvasir (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BMW has sales representative in Japan, sales only, no manufacturing at all. By the way, all non-Japanese brand car is imported car, not only BMW. Also some Japanese brand, Honda or Toyota imports into Japan from their U.S,A. factories for samall quantity though. --Namazu-tron (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Toyota will be at top. It is matter of time

People who are posting that Toyota is the largest automaker shouldn't worry at all. It is matter of "when" than matter of "if." It is only a matter of time that Toyota will emerge as the largest automaker this year or the next. That is without a doubt. So don't worry and it will become largest. I think GM should enjoy it while it lasts. 71.229.195.124 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

This makes little since to me. For starters Toyota soundly beats GM in revenue, I think it should be known that GM is the largest auto-seller, by amount sold, not even close to revenue made. That should be in the opening paragraph. Pavelow235 (talk)

Sure Toyota's profitability should be mentioned. It is stated in the article and should be in the lead. But rightly or wrongly, that is not how automobile makers are compared. Toyota compares to all other companies on profitability, not just GM. Also, don't forget that GM still surpasses all others in total vehicles produced (because of their truck sales). We also have to watch for comparisons between U.S. sales and total sales. Sunray (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry least about that. Toyota will soundly and decisively beat GM at some point. It *will* happen. Just relax. It won't be 3000 vehicle difference that GM did. It will come down to 100 thousands. There won't be ambiguous win. One day it will be number one. GM will hand it over to Toyota. Game over. Relax 71.237.70.49 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

GM vs Toyota

I don't understand why we just leave out who is number 1. GM held it for many, many years. Now Toyota took it and then GM took it back. Come on, people races are not judged this way. We don't give a race car driver in the front with 10 laps to go 1st place. To count GM out is not very smart. Look at you history when Toyota first came to the U.S market it had to pull out few years later, only to return and now look at it. My point is to never count any one out. The "yahoo" page only saids that Toyota beat GM in the 1st quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim105 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Win is a win. If GM beat Toyota that should be stated. If Toyota wins GM, it should be stated that Toyota won. Simple as that. It does matter who is the largest. GM has been the winner for 76 years, and that should be stated same as who is number 1 or two, which also should be stated. Toyota will be number one this year for sure by 100 thousands or more and I have no problem stating that. Wikipedia should change along with news so that is more relevant. Toyota and GM are definitely bitter rivals. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation, as I read it, is that Toyota surpassed GM in total automobile sales in 2007 and leads right now. However, T does not sell more total vehicles than GM (by a fair margin).[1] So it is fine to say that T is ahead in automobile sales, but it should be pointed out that GM is still the largest manufacturer of motor vehicles. Sunray (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, that Toyota is the largest manufacturer of motor vehicles, not GM. Dwilso 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please show me a reliable source that states that. In the alternative, the one I have given above, shows GM still well ahead. Sunray (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, you can visit these sites: http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080424-Toyota-Claims-World-s-Best-Selling-Automaker-Title/ and also, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/business/worldbusiness/24auto.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin thank you. Dwilso 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both references you give are from the same AP wire story which does indeed say that Toyota surpassed GM in total vehicle sales in Q1, 2008. The story notes that Toyota also topped GM in sales in Q1 of 2007, but not in total annual sales. Another source puts this into context in the following way: "Whether [Toyota] becomes the world’s No. 1 automaker depends on annual worldwide vehicle production, rather than sales, and final bragging rights for that won’t be decided until production numbers are tallied for the whole year." Since we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, I think we need to wait for the annual figures. Sunray (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the fact that Eiji Toyoda, the nephew of Sakichi Toyoda cam to the U.S. to study Fords lean process anywhere in the article? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_6_113/ai_76445159 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.65.21 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned in the article. Sunray (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that GM tops in number of manufactured vehicles whether truck or consumer automobiles. This is the case because GM produces vehicles in volume even though they know that they could not sell them. Remember the crushing of the EV1's? I think they are doing this to keep their over sized plants running even at a steep loss. The complete opposite is what T is doing. Have you tried buying a Camry recently? There is a waiting list and you could stay in that list for weeks or months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.58 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Look at you history when Toyota first came to the U.S market it had to pull out few years later, only to return and now look at it. My point is to never count any one out."

During the 80s the US government singlehandedly saved the American big three from being dominated by Japan's big three when OPEC cut oil supply back, allowing the fuel efficient Japanese automakers to gain huge marketshare. The Japanese 'pulled out' because the US had imposed a Voluntary Export Restraint (VER) on the Japanese producers to avoid a complete disaster in one of America's vital industries. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, much of this whole argument is moot. The simple fact is that Toyota and GM are indeed part of the same company, sharing the same parts and manufacturing facilities. Toyota has served as General Motors "test bed" since the 70's, where vehicles such as the Chevette/Acadian/T1000 were based on Toyota designs. The late 70's saw a minitruck revolution with General Motors, Nissan (at that time "Datsun") and Toyota all being identical in nearly every mechanical respect, while the GM had minor cosmetic differences...This can also be said of the Ford Courier and the Mazda pick-up...identical in every respect except minor cosmetics. Later in the 80's cars such as the Nova were identical to the toyota in every respect, and in fact, all of their parts are interchangeable. Mitsubishi and Chrysler have a very similar relationship. Toyota and GM are one and the same, so simply put, both are the world's leader. GM and Toyota will categorically deny this, because they a) must compete to legally do business in North America, and b) would not be able to seek a handout from the American taxpayer to save GM from the big bad Japanese auto giant. They created the giant.

Nope, they are quite separate. Toyota and GM do share certain models (Corolla and Nova being the prime example) but they also have a large number of their own models. Also, I'm yet to see a single Toyota vehicle with a GM V8 or a single GM vehicle with the Toyota/Lexus 1UZ V8. Badge engineering and limited model sharing doesn't mean the companies have merged.

Big Changes in trucks

I've noticed, Toyotas trucks use to be small and chepey, but now, there trucks are like Fords, but better with reliablity. The new Tundra for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infomantoday (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source for this feel free to add it into the article. Dayyanb (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral or incomplete article

This article doesn't mention that after World War II Toyota was on the brink of bankruptcy due to a series of circumstances: the devastation consequent to the war, lack of skilled workers and technicians and, ultimately, poor quality of the products. A fair article should mention that the company was near extintion serabarto@yahoo.com . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.113.21 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a good reference source, please feel free to add it to the article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV and poorly-sourced sections from article

The following sections have been moved here for discussion. Most of the information comes from a report by the National Labor Committee and is sourced to the committee's website, an AFL-CIO blog, an outfit called "How to Buy American and an article in the In the Times magazine. Despite the significance of the information, curiously, there is no coverage in any of the mainstream media. This seems odd. -----

Please post those sources here. Sunray (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-16-hybrid-credit-usat_x.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22773-2004Oct10.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7433145.stm http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUST18852520071205 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.40.132 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• The USA Today article is about tax credits for hybrid cars. It deals with Toyota, Honda, and Ford, who are recipients of the credit. Toyota (the largest hybrid manufacturer) likes the credits, the others would like credits for other technologies. There is no criticism of Toyota.
• The Washington Post article is a study of the use of temporary employees by companies in the U.S. It features a non-union Toyota plant in Kentucky as a case study, showing how Toyota uses temps as a buffer to keep its permanent work force stable. It is an interesting and complex account about the use of temporary workers and would likely be better in that article than the one on Toyota.
• The BBC article is discussed by Stepho-wrs below (#19).
• The Reuters article is about labour practices. It features a Toyota employee who died of overwork.

Some of these articles are good. While the Washington Post and Reuters articles use Toyota cases, they are about subjects that are common in big corporations the world over: labour practices, outsourcing, etc. In order to use such references in this article, we would need to show that Toyota was exceptional in some way in comparison to other large corporations. To do that, we would need other sources. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections moved from article

Corporate Welfare and Government Subsidies

Toyota has received billions in state and local government tax subsidies since 1986. Toyota has received $323.9 million in subsides from Mississippi taxpayers for the plant in Tupelo. Toyota took $371 million in subsides from Kentucky taxpayers for their Georgetown plant. Toyota has been given $133 million by Texas taxpayers. Toyota promised "good jobs” in return for the subsidies it was given by American communities. Instead Toyota has given low wage communities $12 an hour jobs with little or no healthcare, firing of employees who are injured at work, and relying on temporary workers that earn half the wages of a permanent employee.

Toyota also received subsides of $3,150 per Prius sold in the United States. This amounted to at least $189 million for the 60,000 cars sold.

General Motors spent $5.2 billion on health care for employees in 2004. However, many of the Toyota workers in the United States have little or no health insurance. Healthcare for the Toyota employees lacking health insurance is subsidized in part by the taxes from GM, Ford, and Chrysler employees.

Worker's rights

According to the National Labor Committee, Toyota has engaged in Sweatshop operations, human trafficking and ties to dictatorships.

Toyota has been accused of firing its American employees who are injured on the job. A Washington Post article "Permanent Job Proves An Elusive Dream" shed light on the broken promises Toyota made to a Kentucky community.

"

When Toyota announced it would be coming to Georgetown, Ky., in 1985, it promised to invest $800 million in the community and employ thousands, with thousands more jobs coming through its suppliers[.......] But by 2000, Toyota was carefully controlling any additions to the workforce. When Hicks left his family in Knott County, Ky., to seek work at the plant 140 miles away, the only door left open was through a temporary agency, Manpower Inc. At $12.60 an hour, the job would not even let him afford the $199-a-week health insurance premium for his family of five. But Hicks said Manpower assured him that after a year -- two at the outside -- he would be on Toyota's payroll, earning $24.20 an hour, with health insurance, a dental plan, retirement benefits, incentive pay, the works."

In Japan, 33% of Toyota workers (about 10,000) are temporary workers. Many of these temporary workers are from China or Vietnam and work for half of the minimum wage. They are forced to work 16 hour daily shifts.

Death

Kenichi Uchino died of work exhaustion in a Tsutsumi Toyota plant in 2002. He died during the 13th hour of his usual 14 hour shift. Uchino was not paid for most of his overtime while working for Toyota.

There have also been allegations that some Toyota workers commit suicide from being under too much pressure.

Ties to Dictatorships

The Burma Campaign UK has listed Toyota on their Burma "Dirty List".

Toyota’s subsidiary, Toyota Tsusho has a joint operation with the brutal Burmese military regime and the Suzuki Motor Corporation. According to the National Labor Committee, the production of parts and vehicles may be used in the oppression and torture of the Burmese people. The workers make 11 to 12 cents an hour.

Notes

I promised Sunray to go through each reference and provide a fair summary of each. I also promised Trapdoorfloor that I would keep my mind open. I will do more as I find time. I will wait to the end before I voice my own opinion (which may change as I read more). Stepho-wrs (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

18 - burmacampaign - only says Toyota has been put on the dirty list. Further details of list at [2] says Toyota is in business with MADI, which is owned by the current Burmese military. No details of the business given. 154 other names on list including BBC Worldwide, Qantas and Lloyds but only other vehicle manufacturer is Suzuki. Mediocre reference.

19 - BBC - repeats simple summary of 18 (ie Toyota put on dirty list). Poor reference.

20 - humanrightsaction - Toyota Group owns approx 33% of Toyota Tsusho which manufactures diesel engines in Burma for use in Burmese military vehicles. Top factory workers get 12 cents per hour (non factory workers get 5 cents, teachers get 2 cents, which means Toyota is paying above average for its cheap labour), no mention of work conditions. Toyota pledged to stay out of Burma in 2001 but changed their mind. Good details, unbiased, good reference.

21 - nicnet - Says Burma regime is horrible, Toyota does business with them (few details), therefore Toyota supports rape, torture, etc. Lots of hyperbole, extremely biased. Very poor reference.

Discussion re sources

I think that this information should be subjected to verification for the reliablity of its sources. Then it needs to be re-written in neutral language. I cannot do that right now, so I've moved the information here in the hope that someone will be able to take a good look at it. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that it stays on Wikipedia at all, most of it would be more appropriate in Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, many of the Toyota workers in the United States have little or no health insurance. needs to be cited at least. --Azileretsis (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How does health insurance for Toyota's workers compare to other automobile companies? It would have to be remarkable in some way. We need a source for this if it is to be included. Sunray (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The following opinion is allowed to be on the article: "American car manufacturers had considered small economy cars to be an "entry level" product, and their small vehicles were made to a low level of quality in order to keep the price low. "

According to whom, where these vehicles made at a "low level of quality"? This is not even a fact, yet it is allowed to be in the article. I have provided reliable sources supporting my FACTS yet they are deleted by biased censors.

If the BBC,The Washington Post,USA Today, and the Reuters aren't sources that are reliable enough for you censors, what sources are? Apparently there is a consensus that only opinions(not even facts) that are postive about Toyota are allowed to be posted. Any FACTS that are not so flattering to Toyota's image will be deleted. Thank you for showing how biased the censorship works! Trapdoorfloor (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recieved this reply from one of the biased censors:

"Multiple editors have been reverting your edits to Toyota. Most of us are probably biased towards Toyota (at least I am) but we are still open to unpleasant facts if they are presented with good citations and without malice. Discussing them on the discussion page first will also go a long way to convincing us. Please talk with us. Stepho-wrs (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC) "

It's interesting to have biased censors delete FACTS(backed by reliable sources) saying they are "not neutral". Trapdoorfloor (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of these sources you have found are good. But they don't all say what you are trying to say. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, and, especially WP:SYNTH. In some cases you are drawing conclusions that are not in the source used. It is not good enough and I will not work on it if you keep putting it back in the article. Sunray (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "biased censors" is a personal attack and not helpful. If we are to get this material in shape to put into the article, we will have to work together collaboratively. When you come back, I am willing to work with you. In the meantime, I'm going to think about how we could make your material more neutral. Sunray (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am back. I find it troubling that it takes all this work just to put facts on the article, yet others have added OPINIONS, such as the one I mentioned earlier, yet there was no controversy.--Trapdoorfloor (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We have to provide reliable sources for new material, particularly anything that can be challenged. Sources are absolutely necessary for critical statements about a subject, for legal reasons. Generally, we need to compare to other manufacturers in the same industry. Most automobile makers are subject to attacks by their competitors and lobby groups. We have to find criticism that meets the requirements of WP:VER. I will work with you if you sort things out here before putting it into the article. More later. Sunray (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up? Toyota going after Images of their cars.

http://torrentfreak.com/toyota-claims-ownership-081114/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le1hSCD3lA8 (<---first saw the news)

Hmmmm....could this be a legal problem for Wikipedia, and by default, Commons? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at slashdot (computer tech forum) is that Toyota

• overstepped the law - has to be about their logo or a pic they own (eg from a brochure), not just all pics that happen to have a Toyota car in them,
• didn't follow the correct legal procedures,
• are alienating their own customers.

Since Wikipedia is picky about how it accepts images, we should be legally safe. Wikipedia's lawyers will tell us if anything needs to be changed (unlikely). Business as usual. Stepho-wrs (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto Plants

I've noticed that there is no mention to the early "globalization" of toyota , Theres a mentioning of a brasilian subsidiary but not a single mention to the creation of a factory there as early as 1959 , also a mentioning of thailand but not the Malasyan Factory in 1968 , also there was a factory in Portugal as early as 1968 (thus becaming the first european Toyota factory), also a factory in South Africa opened in 1962 and another in Kenya opened in 1977. Sotavento (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Please feel free to add this info if you have good sources. Please remember to keep it brief - details can be added in the appropriate subsidiary article. Toyota's main website has a history page with many (but not all) of these dates. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/history/1950.html Stepho-wrs (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this page protected?

I just reverted blatant vandalism on this page (the whole page was erased and replaced with "POOP! : )" over and over again. Tr1290 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the vandalism continues, you may wish to report it here. Sunray (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Tr1290 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Loss?

In the opening paragraph it says: "Toyota was hit by the global financial crisis of 2008 as it was forced in December 2008 to forecast its first annual loss in 70 years" But the box to the right shows no losses. Am I missing something or is the source to this claim wrong. The box to the right is sourced by toyota so I think that is accurate. Lambedan (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable source for the annual loss part. It seems like some financial number that doesn't represent the total picture was used. Unless more info can be found on this I will remove the loss line. Lambedan (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Toyota, like many Japanese companies, adopts a financial year end of March 31. Therefore, the global financial crisis of 2008 is forecasted, by Toyota, to cause its first annual loss for the financial year ended March 31, 2009. The full year result of 2008/09 will be released on May 8, 2009.--North wiki (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Corporate hall of shame and gas guzzling vehicles

I think these two sections should be combined and/or eliminated, because they come from the same source, cover the same topic, and the accusations are quite wrong and stupid in places. Also, it should mentioned that while Toyota was nominated, it wasn't inducted.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/24/7865

These sources are also incredibly biased. Toyota is one of the most environmentally-friendly automotive companies, but it is definitely true that with vehicles like the Tundra (and the Sequoia, which definitely shouldn't be named after a tree) it is far from being entirely green. However, all the US brands (and some others) have similar trucks and they lack the small cars and hybrids that Toyota has. There are also tons of luxury vehicles that sacrifice efficiency for power. It's not fair that Toyota is called a hypocrite for using the green image that it truly earned. These sources also never specify how tough these new fuel standards could be. California's clean car bill would limit CO2 emissions so much that cars would have to get 43mpg minimum, which would eliminate almost everything except the Toyota Prius and Chevy Volt.[see next link] Not to mention the fact that the American market is very different from the Japanese one, so they should not have the same standards. For one thing, some people in North America actually NEED trucks. And there's also the dubious "fleet-wide fuel efficiency is lower today than it was a couple decades ago" statement. It gives no specifics, and fails to mention that modern safety equipment adds weight, so ALL vehicles are less efficient than they would be if they were built in previous decades.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/latest_news_reviews/drastic_fuel_economy_increases_could_stem_from_bailout_and_cripple_automakers_car_news

And then there's "thanks to their continued reliance on selling gas guzzlers...", which is completely false. Toyota was doing fine with relatively few trucks, but didn't really get into the game until midway through the SUV/Pickup boom when they saw how much the US companies were making off it. When truck sales plummetted, it was the US companies that got hurt the most, because THEY were the companies that relied on guzzler sales. The Tundra sold at capacity since 2000, but only had 17% of the half-ton market. Trucks like the Tundra were just the icing on Toyota's cake.

99.247.211.44 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

solar

I removed this from the main article (added by User:Shawn in Montreal) but it's worth keeping an eye on for the future.

• An unconfirmed report in January 2009 stated that Toyota is secretly working on an all-solar vehicle.<ref>{{cite news |first=Yuri |last=KAGEYAMA |title=Toyota works in secret on solar vehicle |work=Associated Press |page= |date= 2 January 2009 |accessdate=2 January 2009|quote= |url=http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/492639 }}</ref>

Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 Statistics

I am moving the 2009 figures from the main introduction to the "Operations" section of the article. Though they may be relevant, I don't think they warrant being in the main article description.

Kd420 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Toyota Motor Europe

Hey guys, somebody started an article on Toyota Motor Europe, Toyota's European HQ. Can you have a look at it (I cut out some of the duplicate info & promo talk already, but there's still room for improvement). Maybe it can be merged into Toyota#Worldwide_presence, though it probably could stand as an article on its own since Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America has one. TME should at least be mentioned/linked in the worldwide presence section. 195.177.83.222 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hino Motors

"Toyota currently owns and operates Lexus,HINO Trucks and Scion brands "

Hino Motors (7205.TO) (which manufactures and sells Hino Trucks) is a listed subsidiary of Toyota. It is listed in Tokyo Stock Exchange.--North wiki (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Trucks

i want to complain about the saying about toyota's trucks. in the article they are talking about how they are indestructable. i bet i can take a hammer and knock the hell out of of toyota truck. and why dont we talk about toyota's goverment bailout. toyota got billions from a bailout from japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.131.201 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have valid points. Please be careful of going to far the other way. Calling the Hilux 'indestructible' is not correct (as you pointed out) but a comment such as 'there is no such thing as a indestructible truck' is also not suitable for an encyclopaedia.

The bailout information needs a little more work. When I read 'state backed' I thought of a state within a country (eg New South Wales in Australia or California in the USA). Should it be handouts for a Japanese car buyer or manufacturer? I now that's what the reference says but we should say it in our own words and not simple copy their mistakes. The article should say the loan is reported to be 200 billion yen. Saying $3billion is misleading because we don't know if it is Australian, New Zealand, Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Canadian or monopoly dollars. Also, this is a loan, not a handout. Lastly, the whole bailout section need to be renamed and placed within the financial section. Don't forget to format new references similar to the others (title, access date, etc). Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Toyota Motor Corporation

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn, per the discussion below, although it's not the case that this is the only use of the term "Toyota". Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Toyota → Toyota Motor Corporation — - More precise name in English (see also Ford Motor Company). "Toyota" of course will still redirect here. Facts707 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Your example of Ford doesn't apply here. There are tons of uses for "Ford", "Toyota" is obviously gonna be mainly about the company. NES Wii (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME; the proposed move would be excessive precision, resulting in a long and clumsy title. Flamarande (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's not more precise at all, because both terms refer to exactly the same company, and only to that. Knepflerle (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for same commoname reasons as others. I see a wasteful pattern here with the same thing being proposed at Suzuki and Nissan Motors. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. You're technically correct but the new name is real clumsy for linking from other articles and the old name works just fine for practically all uses (short, well known, not ambiguous).  Stepho  (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: per COMMONNAME. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: per COMMONNAME. This is a really bad proposal. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCCN.--Staberinde (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw request - thanks for the feedback. A closer look at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION as well as the disamb. page indicates the name should stay as is. Ford Motor Company will have to debate its own future. Facts707 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No longer the largest automaker in the world

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1161/volkswagen-steals-toyotas-crown-as-worlds-largest-automaker/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.147.126 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that Toyota and VW pages are being changed to make VW the world's largest automaker. Does anyone have a credible source instead of Yahoo Autos? Even the Volkswagen Group talk page is asking for a credible source like the NY times. Toyota claims the March 2008 to March 2009 global sales were 7.57 million units. [3]  Stepho  (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And VW group claims Jan 2008 to Dec 2008 sales of 6.272 million units. [4] Obviously this might change up or down for 2009 depending on how Scania's acquisition in Feb 2009 is counted and whether Porsche decides to keep Scania in the group.  Stepho  (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 3.8M cars recalled?

The 2010 Toyota cars recall should be included in the article as it has affected more than 1.8 million of Toyota vehicles. The article should have factual information and should not just be a advertising stage for Toyota corporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkspank101 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired, so I'll be blunt.

• The recall has a very detailed article on it at 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls‎. That article is linked to in the 'Recent company developments' section of the Toyota article. The recall is an event in Toyota's history, not part of what defines Toyota. Thus it really should be in the History of Toyota article. Guess what, the recall is mention there! This Toyota article also has a link to History of Toyota which has a small section on the recall that jumps to the detailed 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls‎ article. So, we have not kept the information away from readers, not hidden it in a particular hard place to find - we just haven't shouted it at the top of our lungs in the introduction.
• The Wikipedia guidelines say that we are not a blog and not a news site. What goes on WP should be relevant today and also in 5 years time. Which means we don't give huge amounts of space to recent events, nor put recent events in the introduction - ie what seems important today is just old news next year. Read WP:recentism.
• When you edit a page, read what is already there. I had a comment right where you put your stuff saying that the recall was already in the 'Recent company developments' section. You must have seen it when you deleted it.
• When you add something to a talk page, put new stuff at the bottom. It also helps if you read what's already on the talk page - such as the '2010 suspension of sales' section just above this one which details why I edit like I do and also that the consensus seems to be agreeing with me. And lastly, sign your comments on the talk page - it makes it so much easier to track who said what.  Stepho  (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot one thing. The 'Recent company developments' section is where we stick the items that are currently in the news. The title is not meant to reflect the actually current item(s). To make this more obvious, I've reinstated the title 'Recent company developments', added a comment to explain its purpose and given the actual news items their own sub section titles. Of course, each item will be deleted as it becomes no longer of interest. If the item was truly noteworthy from a historical perspective (ie after everyone has calmed down and moved onto the next crisis), then it can be added to History of Toyota. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Corporate Totalitarianism now under scrutiny?

Given recent recalls, there is now some media attention given to the tradition of Toyota's Corporate Totalitarian and rigid management system. NPR Sunday Morning interviewed former Toyota employees in its report broadcast Feb. 7, 2009. One employee reported that Toyota has standards on how employees should walk, turn corners, and what routes they must take to commute to work and what hazards they may confront along that route. The employee questioned the totalitarian nature of the corporate tradition and whether this tradition will be adaptable today. The report also focussed on corporate cost-cutting and a series of top-down management decisions which may have compromised Toyota's quality control. NPR also discussed Toyota's drive to globalize their business, raising questions regarding possible imbalances in the evolution of Toyota in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.0.54 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this interesting piece of information. For those interested, here is a link I googled: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123463740 Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality problems

Why are the several recalls under way not mentioned in the article? This seems a major omission in the article, and I have inserted a couple of refs to address the problem. Peterlewis (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They are: look in Toyota#Recent company developments. We have also talked about them on this talk page: Talk:Toyota#2010 suspension of sales and Talk:Toyota#3.8M cars recalled?. They are also mentioned in History of Toyota and talked about in great detail at 2009–10 Toyota vehicle recalls. Your edit was in good faith but unnecessary, so I have reverted it.  Stepho  (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 suspension of sales

I do not believe that this information belongs in this particular article. This article defines what Toyota is (vehicle manufacturer), where it is manufactures and sells these vehicles, how it relates to other companies, etc. Whereas this is an event in Toyota's history and as such would be more suitable for inclusion in the History of Toyota article. Even then, it must still pass the filter of 'will we care in five years?' so that we don't become a news blog. I have already shifted this info to the history article once (in-spite of misgivings about its relevance in 2015). Comments?  Stepho  (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Why not talk about it? Users need to know that Toyota is NOT perfect. Bill Heller (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I didn't realize that there was such an article. It doesn't really fit well in the main article, but I think it's worth a brief mention in the history. Many news sources are discussing this not just as a mechanical problem but also in a larger context of the company's reputation and earnings (for example: "Toyota's suspension of U.S. sales on an unprecedented scale to fix faulty gas pedals deals a blow to the automaker's reputation for quality and endangers its fledgling earnings recovery." And more significantly: "...commentators in Japan fretted Wednesday that the automaker’s problems could seriously hurt the reputation of the rest of Japan’s manufacturing sector." We just need to keep it NPOV. Evil saltine (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. You've convinced me that suspension of sales is noteworthy. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The article needs updating. According to the page view statistics traffic for this article is increasing. Wikipedia is not a news blog, but this story is much more than a routine recall according to several reliable sources. --Jmundo (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see the article is on the main page of Wikipedia.--Jmundo (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The front page has a link to 2010 Toyota vehicle recall which lays it out in all of its gory detail. That page has a link to Toyota. Most people will go to the 'recall' page first, so there is no need to turn the 'Toyota' page into a news blog. This recall is an event in Toyota's history, not something which defines what Toyota is, and therefore belongs on the History of Toyota page, which already has this event. However, I will update the History of Toyota page to include a link to 2010 Toyota vehicle recall.  Stepho  (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I'm removing the story about the recall. It' sactually not even written in the same style as the rest of the article, just thrown in as a news article, completely out of context. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Recalls: Clarification needed

I would like to suggest that someone documents the recent hype about Toyota recalls sticking Accelerators etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzeva (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Its already in the article. Read the entire bottom half of this talk page for the multiple times I have answered this question.  Stepho  (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this has been brought up before but I think maybe a current events tag at the top or something similar should be included in this article. This isn't a typical recall, this is a company who keeps insisting it fixed the problem yet is still having confirmed problems with fixed vehicles. I came to this article looking for information about what was happening with the recall and after a quick scan only learned about the recall page after looking at the talk page.

If not a current events link related to the recall then maybe a more prominent mention of the recall and issues page link since I am sure I am not the only one looking for it. I am not an editor and this is the first time I have posted on a talk page so if I am out of line please ignore. I do think this will be something that will be talked about in five years, if for no other reason for the company's response no matter how it ultimately concludes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.140.123 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the history section to be the first section after the intro. That should make it easier to find for casual readers. I can't move it any higher because it should not be the main focus of the article. If it is still considered important in five years time then it will still be an entry on the history of Toyota page but definitely not on this main page (because it won't be recent). For comparison, how many people do you know who care about the Pentium floating point bug. At the time it was big news about how badly Intel managed it but only geeks remember it now. Similar for Ford's exploding fuel tanks and tyre problems. All is forgotten after their fifteen minutes of fame. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Before editing numbers, please note

This is an article about Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC). Please keep all financial, production and sales data on the group level, including Daihatsu and Hino. Please note any deviations from this rule. Thank you. --BsBsBs (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Acceleration Problem

A number of Toyota and Lexus models have had their owners complain about unintended or sudden acceleration problems including popular models such as the Prius, Camry and the Lexus ES. These cars rely on an electronic drive-by-wire pedal system that uses computer controls instead of a direct physical connection between the accelerator pedal and the throttle.

News reports at: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/toyota-acceleration-problem-is-still-unresolved/ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/sudden-acceleration-toyota-cars-owners-rebel-accidents/story?id=8980479 http://www.safetyresearch.net/2009/09/18/fatal-california-crash-highlights-toyota%E2%80%99s-sudden-unintended-acceleration-problem/

It would appear that there should be some discussion of that here. Natwebb (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A software patch could let the brakes and Neutral completely over ride the accelerator pedal when the car is moving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.59.78 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be important news right now but in five years time it might not be. Can you think of any other recalls that people cared about after a few years? So, if it belongs anywhere at all then it belongs in the history article rather than the intro of the main article. Remember that WP is not a news blog.  Stepho  (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Firestone/Explorer ring any bells? I think toyota disagree with your assessment as to whetehr it is a notable issue. Greglocock (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. Everybody is agreed that it is important now (except to Australians because we use a pedal assembly from a different manufacturer :) but will anybody really care about it in 5 years time? If anybody still cares later on then it can stay in the History of Toyota article but in no way should it be in the introduction.  Stepho  (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes people will care about it in 5 years time. Not just from the Toyota Point of view, but also the way news updates were blocked on the Toyota page at Wikipedia, ending up in fractured side-articles and a lot of redundancy. From where I stand, this confusion is contributing to the overall obfuscation of real issues that could otherwise have been clarified, as you yourself noted in Talk:2009–10_Toyota_vehicle_recalls#Other_manufacturers. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read (or re-read) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And Wikipedia:No original research. The day Wikipedia compromises on those core principles is the day what little of its reputation is left goes down the drain. Then it's just another news blog, like Stepho-wrs pointed out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the official site of the Toyota corporation. The continuous reverting of information about the current situation is the real issue here. --Jmundo (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing Wikipedia with Wikinews. It also sounds like you haven't read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did read it and this is what it says at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

I disagree with the position that the Toyota recall does not belong in Wikipedia - quite the contrary since Wikipedia may be the only place on the net where Toyota can get a "fair trial". Ottawahitech (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Stepho, you seem very biased towards Toyota. It should be in this article and it should be in the history of Toyota. People need to know that this company deliberately deceived the American public.Bill Heller (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I have a bias towards Toyota's engineering of their cars but am quite aware that the Toyota corporation is as fallible as any other corporation. My main concern is that the article will become overloaded about the recall or that the recall will be the focus of the article. Read my previous edits and talk posts and you will see that my position has softened a bit from my original position of disallowing it altogether. I am still adamant that the recall info should be limited to a paragraph or two in this article but have accepted that it can be placed closer to the top (but not in the lead paragraph). Instead, it gets a similar summary in History of Toyota and a massive, detailed, 'blood, guts and all' article at 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls. So, this means that the recall info is as easy to find as I can possibly manage without it being the focus of the article. And I am still convinced that by next year it will barely be remembered. Do you remember similar media hysteria over exploding fuel tanks, blowing tyres, the Pentium bug or even the millennium bug? After the event the general population forgets it and it becomes a mere footnote somewhere.  Stepho  (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stepho, your bias towards Toyota is harming the article. In my opinion, since Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia, articles should reflect what people want to see. I am very convinced that if GM, Ford, or Chrysler had a defect of this scale, you would feel very differently about putting information in the article. Do you work for Toyota? If so your insistence(which is in itself inappropriate in more ways than one) that this information be hidden is downright unethical. Bill Heller (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, please read this article and tell me how much is being hidden? Also notice that a link to that very same 'recall' article is as close to the top of the 'Toyota' article without actually being in the lead section itself (the lead section being for the definition of the company, not for the latest news). Does that sound like hiding it? I mentioned in my previous post that originally I wanted to keep recent news out of the article (to avoid becoming a news blog) but later my changed my mind because so many people were interested in it. Over time I have even shifted it closer to the top of the article as more people kept saying they couldn't find it. Does that sound like not evolving to suit the readers? Now for the personal attacks. I am in no way affiliated with Toyota in any way shape or form except that I like their older cars and maintain a [fan web site] about these older cars. My ethics have kept me from editing the 'recall' article, restricting myself to only a very few edits of a simple nature. Does that sound like the work of an unethical man? Now for some counter attacks. In the two weeks since my last reply, did you read any of my comments? I answered everyone of your accusations and you have replied to none of them. In fact, you have only reiterated your initial accusations, made an incorrect guess about my employer and made a slur against my character. Did you do any reading on the previous media crises that I mentioned (eg, Pentium bug)? At the time they were in every newspaper but now practically nobody cares. I am trying hard to avoid an article that starts with 'OMG! OMG! OMG! Toyota murders patriotic citizens!', followed by the entire contents of 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls, followed by 'and oh, they make cars and stuff' - full stop. That's what less scrupulous newspapers do - it's not what encyclopaedias do. If I have guessed your thoughts wrong then I apologise but it seems like I am getting a constant barrage of requests for the 'OMG!' style from people who apparently can't read beyond the introductory section. But please, read through my comments in this and the other sections. Every one of your accusations has been explained in detail.  Stepho  (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Stepho-wrs' well-reasoned position and strongly disagree with Bill Heller's rather hysterical and uncalled-for accusation. The proper place for a full discussion of the defects, accidents, recalls, litigation, etc. in all their gory detail is 2009–2010 Toyota vehicle recalls, not this article. Bill Heller, please familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE and the rest of the WP:NPOV policy before replying on this talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, 50 percent of Toyota's history relates to the unintended acceleration recall. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) As of today 9th February 2011, a report has cleared Toyota of the "acceleration" problem, as per example . http://on.cnn.com/eEE0av. How is it possible to add this report into main text? I'm not endorsing or criticising the report, but it's an official result. Needs wikipedia compliance in wording etc. Thanks Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Automaker

What does this phrase mean? Should it not read "Vehicle manufacturer"? Is this an encyclopaedia or not? An automaker is someone who automatically makes something, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.210.59 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

'automaker' is shorthand for 'automobile maker', which is of course the same as 'vehicle maker', 'automobile manufacturer' or 'vehicle manufacturer'. I've change the article to use 'automobile maker' except when it is quoting from a reference.  Stepho  (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's irrelevant. Bill Heller (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the bribe scandals are not inside?

In 2010 Toyota is sued to have brided some U.S. officers to make toyota having a better safty record than other auto makers. Here is the link: http://www.hrolex.com/rolexblogs/post/263.html 16:08, 9 May 2010 124.192.1.27

That website is a little weird. It looks like the output of a typical web translator - complete with bad grammar and Chinese characters near the end. It has 'Rolex watches' or 'replica Rolex' embedded in random places in every other sentence. The website as a whole is dedicated to replica (ie fake) watches of many famous name brands - which automatically makes it suspicious. And of course, being a blog it has no credible sources of its own behind it. This raises too many red flags for me to accept it as a reliable source. Do you have any more credible sources?  Stepho  (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The hrolex.com site is a scam. It uses news articles with attractive keywords to attract search engines to a site that sells fake watches. Even the domain registration data for hrolex.com appears to be fake. I would not be surprised if the IP above is connected to hrolex.com. hrolex.com has a history of spamming. I have professionally followed the Toyota story for a long time, and there have been no "bribery" allegations. As nobody will accept a site that hawks fake watches as a source, I see the above entry as another spam attempt to drive traffic to hrolex. I move for removal of this whole chapter. --BsBsBs (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Production and sales numbers

Consistency is king. This is an article about TMC, and numbers should reflect group performance, not just single brands.

OICA is the worldwide keeper of production numbers, and OICA reports on a group basis. In their last (2008) ranking, OICA http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2008.pdf has Toyota at a worldwide production of 9,237,780 and it would behoove us well to follow industry standards.

Other WP articles about the majors report group sales as well. Sometimes, they are inflated by counting minority holdings (GM is the main perpetrator), but if they say those are the numbers, then all we can do is to report them.

TMC includes Hino and Daihatsu in their regular reports, and if they do it, so should we. I strongly suggest to bring up the Toyota article to these set standards, and not just count Toyota and Lexus. For the time being, I have left pre-2009 numbers as is, and I also left 2009 reflecting Toyota and Lexus only, but the matter must be revisited urgently in order to avoid spreading falsehoods. Confusing brands with groups is a common error in the industry (sometimes used for propaganda purposes) and we should not perpetrate these mistakes.

The last edit by Stepho-wrs was no improvement. Source 90 reports worldwide production only, not worldwide sales. The claim “Added 2009 Japan sales” is wrong. 1,375,509 units were inserted as worldwide sales. Worldwide sales of 1,375,509 units for Toyota and Lexus would have been a disaster in light of worldwide production of 6,371,291 units. 1,375,509 removed, as Source 90 does not yield that number. Japanese production of Toyota and Lexus was 2,792,274, not 3,543,199 (that’s the group number). Likewise, Japanese sales of Toyota and Lexus were 1,375,509, not 1,996,174 (group number). Please, stay consistent and be careful when editing, this takes time and work. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, putting the Japanese sales figures in the world column was my fault. That's a straight out mistake and I have just removed it. Which is why we have multiple eyes checking these things and I thank you for that.

As for the rest, yes consistency most definitely is king. The problem is - consistent with what. The previous figures have been mostly for the Toyota brand. We will have to double check to see if some of them counted or did count Lexus, Scion, Hino and Daihatsu. Personally I don't mind which set of numbers we use but we must be consistent (as Bs said) and we must tell the reader what they include. Things to bear in mind are:

• http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/10/01/0125.html says 2009 Toyota production of 6,371,291 was down 22.4% from end of CY2008, which matches reasonably close with the article's 2008 total of 8,547,000 (8,547,000-22.4%=6,632,472, about 260,000 off). The grand total of 7,234,439 is much further off (about 600,000 off). Since neither matches really closely, all the recent figures are now suspect.
• The 2009 figure given in the same link list Toyota (I assume that includes Lexus), Daihatsu and Hino separately, followed by a total column. This implies that TMC thinks of the Toyota brand separate to the rest.
• Is Toyota a major shareholder of Daihatsu and Hino, a minor shareholder or just a partner?
• Correlating figures before and after a major change in shareholdings can be complicated (ie reported numbers in one year might not include Hino but in the next they might). Big jumps in the figures will have to be explained.
• When people think of Chevy, Oldsmobile, etc they automatically think of GM. But when people think of Daihatsu they do not think of Toyota. Hino is a border line case because Toyota dealers often have links with Hino sales and service.
• Following http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/world-ranking-2008.pdf would be nice if we can get the same figures all the way back to 1960s (before any major mergers, splits, shareholding changes, etc)

But like I said, we can discus which set of figures we want to show. Then we should make them consistent with that agreement and then we must also tell the reader which set we have chosen.  Stepho  (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just like Audi or Skoda are subsidiaries of VW and reported on a consolidated basis, Daihatsu and Hino are subsidiaries of Toyota. Their sales are reported side by side with Toyota each month and aggregated. They definitely are part of the OICA numbers. I have access to Toyota press releases way back and can bring the data to a group level.

As for CY 2008 numbers, no need to backtrack, here they are: http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/09/0128.html. The grand total of 9,225,236 is reasonably close to the OICA number of 9,237,780. I was at Toyota HQ last week and received a short tutorial on numbers. I was warned to expect slight differences due to differing methodologies.

Also, “Toyota's Sales and Distribution by Geographical Regions for the Year Ended 31 March 2009” purports to list sales, whereas reference 55 lists net revenues. The numbers in the article are from the fiscal that ended March 2007. The reference most likely is on a group level. The list is meaningless, I recommend removal.

For consistency, a decision must be made to report on brand or group level. As the article is about the group, I strongly recommend group. --BsBsBs (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As per the above, I have added worldwide production, Japanese production and Japanese sales since 2001 (my official releases start in 2001). I also added OICA global production numbers 1998 - 2000. All numbers on Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) group level, including Hino and Daihatsu where applicable. Hino was added in 2000. Please keep all data on group level. Also be advised that Toyota has (like most Japanese companies) a fiscal year from April 1 through March 31. Please be careful with calendar year (CY) and fiscal year (FY) data. Thank you! --BsBsBs (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No! No! NO! This is not as 'per the above'. You have made unilateral changes that have NOT been agreed upon. We have opened a discussion that has identified a problem but we have not reached a consensus yet. Until we have reached a consensus, neither of us should be editing that data. In this spirit, I have reverted both of our edits back a couple of days. After a consensus has been reached among a few more editors, then and only then should we update the article.  Stepho  (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no other editors. Your edits were wrong and did not properly reflect the cited source. Your edits make the article clash with other published numbers, namely by Toyota and OICA. OICA is the final word on auto production. There is nothing to agree upon. Facts do not change because Stepho and Bs reach consensus. This is an article about the Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) group, Daihatsu and Hino belong to the group and are reported by the group. You may challenge unsourced data (there is a lot to challenge), but you may not challenge properly sourced data, coming from a grade A reliable source, namely Toyota. These edits took considerable time and work. I will take a very dim view if they are reverted again. --BsBsBs (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bertel, I think you have made some very serious errors here. Your first error is that you have assumed that your method is correct, that other methods are in automatically in error and that anybody who questions you must be mad. Or at least that is what I am getting from your answers. I also find that your debating method is of 'the shout it repeatedly and ignore what the others say' style. Thirdly, forging ahead with your own edits while there are questions about what you want to edit is highly rude - even more so because you claim that there is nothing to discuss when other people (namely me) are very obviously trying to discus it. And as for taking a dim view of things, there are two answers for that. The first answer is displayed by WP every time you do an edit 'If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.' The second answer is that I also take a dim view of having someone ride roughshod over my work without even the good manners to discuss it. Which do you think is simpler: gaining a partner by convincing me of your rightness by answering my questions or going through a protracted period of reversals and counter reversals. Now, on to the actual topic...

1. How far back do the published OICA figures go?
2. For the OICA figures on Toyota, do they include Toyota+Hino+Daihatsu vehicles for all the years that TMC has owned majority share holdings in Hino and Daihatsu or are the early years Toyota only?
3. In which year did TMC take a majority shareholding in Hino and/or Daihatsu. History books I have at my finger tips say business ties and agreements were made in 1966/67 but shareholdings were not mentioned. Japanese businesses will often make gentlemen's agreements to divide the market place up between companies and to provide services to each other without actually joining into a single entity right away (eg Hino dropped its Contessa cars, Toyota dropped its heavy trucks and both shared some production facilities). Current WP articles on Hino and Daihatsu mention that TMC is a majority shareholder but don't say when this happened. If we don't know when TMC took a majority shareholding in Hino or Daihatsu then we will have some trouble interpreting the numbers.
4. Notice that Toyota own figures list the Toyota brand (presumably including Lexus), then the Hino and Daihatsu brands, followed by the combined total. Apparently Toyota still think if themselves as somewhat separate from Hino and Daihatsu.
5. Should the US sales column include Hino and Daihatsu sales in the US?
6. Do we include forklift production or just road vehicles?
7. Do we include housing sales and fish product sales (Toyota diversified widely just after WWII in order to take care of its staff).
8. Even if all the above can be answered, how do we manage the transition from the Toyota brand only figures of the early years to the whole TMC group figures of the later years? A big jump due to one year not including Hino and the next year including Hino must be explained to the reader. Likewise for Daihatsu. Which year did this occur?
9. And of course, the question at the heart of all this is - Do the major editors of this article want to show the numbers for the TMC group as a whole or just the numbers for the Toyota brand? Either can be argued for, as long as it is explained to the reader which was chosen.

In short, you are asking us to make a big change, therefore discussion is preferred first instead of fighting.  Stepho  (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer to the long rant: This is an article about Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC). TMC includes Hino and Daihatsu. Financials, employee numbers etc. reflect performance of TMC as a whole. Logic dictates that production and sales numbers do the same. If you want Toyota brand only, you need to start an article about the Toyota brand. The answers to most if not all of your questions are readily available. Some even right in this article. As far as fighting goes, I agree. Our energies are better used to improve this article. It needs work. --BsBsBs (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No Bertel, you can't wish it away as a rant. I have raised concerns about how your changes fit into the rest of the data (since you have only changed 1998-2009, leaving pre 1998 data in the old style) and the onus is on you to do the research to answer these concerns.  Stepho  (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the fighting. We do not want the article nominated for WP:LAME. I will no longer comment on this matter. --BsBsBs (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I will do the research that you don't want to provide. If it all matches then all is good. But if I find something wrong then I will simply revert your stuff back without asking for any further explanation.  Stepho  (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Trademarks

The trademark section needs serious cleanup. It contains a lot of extraneous and unsourced material. For instance, the reader gets the impression that Toyota is trademarked for Building Materials. This was a filing for dealer signage. The arcana of trademark classes and intersecting ovals are better left out of a general article about a company. A challenge has been issued. --BsBsBs (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Financial Data Fiscal 2010

I have added financial data for fiscal 2010, as released by TMC. This is for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2010. All data are consolidated for the TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION (TMC). The currency is Japanese Yen (JPY), as this is what the source yielded. No conversion to USD was performed, as this is not covered by the source. Note: In the news release that announced the data, the company also announced consolidated vehicle sales of 7.24 million units. These are for the fiscal year, not for the calendar year. For comparison purposes, only calendar year data should be used.

The lead was also updated with current data. A cleanup was performed to remove ambiguity between Toyota Motor Corporation and other Toyota Group companies. By popular request, companies that belong to Toyota Motor Corporation have been identified, based on TMC data. --BsBsBs (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a serious clean up

The first section under history claims that in 2009 Toyota lost money for the first time in over 50 years, but ignores the fact that since then Toyota has been profitable again, and I don't feel that there should be a seperate section, let alone article for the recalls. None of the other automakers have a section for their recalls, and we all know GM, Ford, and Chrysler have had plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.252.143 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's where I get to dance a little jig while saying 'Told you so! Told you so!'. At the time, heaps of newly minted editors wanted to put 'OMG! OMG! OMG! Toyota is killing people!' in the intro because it was so important. I quite rightly predicted that no-one would care in a few years and resisted such edits (see #Toyota Acceleration Problem above). We eventually gave them an article and a link to it from here in the hope that they would leave the main Toyota article alone (thankfully this tactic worked with only minor infractions). The apparent Armageddon has passed and the world is till standing, so yes, please feel free to delete that section. But keep the 2010 Toyota vehicle recall article and keep any mention of it in History of Toyota.  Stepho  (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Amongst the "principles of Toyota" or whatever is this gem: "5.Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time" This would appear to be contradictory - if you are "stopping to fix problems," then how can you have gotten "quality right the first time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the joys of direct quotes. Sometimes they don't make sense but if that's one of the principles that Toyota goes by then we can only repeat it. My interpretation on it is 'fix problems as soon as you find them' in design and on the production line so that they are all solved before the customer experiences them - ie the customer sees everything as right first time. We use the same technique in software engineering.  Stepho  talk  23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Stepho's interpretation is correct, it's about fixing problems as they occur rather than at the end. See the Toyota Production System for more context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.82.248 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss: Semi protect the article?

This is to seek comments on whether we should request semi protection of Toyota.

Semi protection would prevent "edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed."

The reason why I am bringing this up is the high amount of vandalism that occurs recently. Rarely does a day go by without the page being defaced. This is usually reverted rather quickly by watchful editors. However, it is a waste of time and a distraction.

Please add your name (and signature) under the appropriate heading. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am for semi protection of Toyota

Bikergeek (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Seems to be a fair bit of vandalism here.

I am against semi protection of Toyota

 Stepho  talk  19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) No worse than any other page.

Rankings again

I have fixed the intro and added a "Rankings" section that explains what is going on. Rankings are established ONCE PER YEAR, and not at halftime. Official rankings are declared by OICA, not by a blog or a newspaper. Please DO NOT EDIT this unless new official rankings are announced. This edit reflects rankings announced in early August 2011. I will add a similar section at the other contenders. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The table was in HTML for two reasons:

• It is a static table, single sourced, and I honestly don't mind if it is a bit harder to edit, especially for the drive-by editor.
• It had a footnote, which it needs to avoid accusations of OR. The market share is not in the OICA table, however, WP:OR allows simple calculations. I don't want to spend all day learning how to hide a footnote in a wikitable. So now the footnote is - ugly, ugly - in the header. If someone knows how to make a wikitable-compliant footnote, please help out.

Re "summer" v.v. "third quarter": Usually, the OICA table is published "in the last month of July." This year, they were tardy and it slipped into the "first week of August". BsBsBs (talk)

I'm glad you put in an official table from an official body. We went through continual flipping last year when GM and Toyota were both #1 (depending on how you counted subsidiary companies, CKD kits, etc), with hourly changes back and forth between 'Toyota is #1' and 'Toyota is #2'. Anyway, your original text seemed to cover the officiallness of it. Your text also covered the data being published circa June/July/August (which is winter here in Australia), so it seemed reasonable to simplify the table. If you really want it back as a table footnote then I can do it for you as a rowspan but to me it seems better to put it in the body text - leaving the table free to show the data itself. You had good references, so I certainly had no worry about WP:OR.

If you feel like learning wikitables, you can find a simple guide at Help:Table. It's not as full featured as HTML but it covers most stuff of what we want with simple syntax. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  09:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Counting cars is a science. Even sources that should know better, such as the Associated Press consistently get the numbers wrong. Amateurs get hopelessly confused. Outsiders can't possibly reconcile subsidiaries, CKD kits, etc. Even insiders have problems: Annual reports sometimes cannot be relied on. This year, there are deviations of several hundred thousands between OICA and the annual reports. OICA has the final say and must be used when a ranking is taken. Breathless interim reporting should get stomped on. Pls put in the footnote as a rowspan. The same table is at Volkswagen and GM, and we don't want complaints that there is something different at Toyota .... Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a universal and reliable source such as OICA is best.

Re: "we don't want complaints that there is something different at Toyota". No problem, I can make the tables at GM and Volkswagen match this one.  Stepho  talk  16:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You could simply make the entire table a template, obviating the need to go through and change the data in every place where the table is located. Call it {{OICA most recent}}, is my suggestion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  Stepho  talk  23:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edis, summaries, and reverts

Gentlepersons, when making edits, and especially when making reverts, please provide edit summaries.In cases where the reason for the edit is not immediately obvious, please provide your rationale here. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Toyota's missing automobile information

I just want to note that it seems Toyota is conveniently listing the information it deems sells autos rather than listing all the information available for all autos. Case in point is the mileage for its Avanza. It is absolutely no-where to be found. This should be looked into for other automobiles. I think it might show that the company is not as sincere as it would appear. Why is there such a lack of common information in some cases like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.19.68.30 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Japanese dealer network

I have taken the liberty of striking the first paragraph of this section. Reasons:

• The paragraph claims that the Japanese dealer networks are "akin to the Volkswagen Group internal divisions (Volkswagen, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, etc.)" They are not, simply because a dealer network is not an internal division (at least not in this case.)
• The source given for this claim does not support the claim.
• The remainder is either a repetition of what follows, or simply wrong. The article is about the Toyota Motor Corporation, and it does not make forklifts or prefab houses, although the Toyota Group does.

The rest of the section should be cut down severely, as it receives undue weight. It is also mostly unreferenced. What is sold why through which dealer network is in constant flux and beyond the scope of this article.BsBsBs (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with most of Bs's points but I feel that the information should be present on WP somewhere. I have been gathering information on Toyota's sales networks from 1935 onwards and have put my notes at User:Stepho-wrs/Toyota dealer networks (Japan). These are still rough notes, are not yet complete (I'm still reading) and will need plenty of work to make a coherent article but if you want to add some information or comment on anything please feel free to add something on its talk page. Most of my information stops in the late 1980's, so modern information would be most welcome.  Stepho  talk  14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, nice job on the research for the history of Toyota's Japanese dealership networks. This is a great start that helps to shed light on Toyota's influences in developing new products and why there are so many different versions of the same car. The information I added was what I was able to find and translate on the Japanese side and, as most articles on Wikipedia are a collection of what's out there, hopefully this subject will only continue to grow. Incidently, both Honda and Nissan have also used multiple dealerships in the past, but it appears that Toyota is still maintaining them.(Regushee (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

Hyundai

Here's a slow edit war going on about whether Hyundai is a subsidiary of Toyota or not. Somebody want to chime in about how much Toyota owns of Hyundai and whether it counts as a subsidiary or simply an investment. To my mind, being a subsidiary requires Toyota to have a majority say on the board of the lesser company. Note that Toyota owns stock in and has partnerships with other automobile companies, including so called competitors like Fuji and Daihatsui.  Stepho  talk  15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"commonly known simply as Toyota"

Is it necessary to spell this out? Every major company has an extra word at the end describing it, "General Motors [Company]", "Burger King [Corporation]", etc. They're all referred to without the last word for short. The article already calls it "Toyota" throughout, and the title of the article is "Toyota". Gendralman (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "Toyota" it is. Sunray (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Billion vs trillion

Recently the income fields have been jumping between billion and trillion. This is because in some places billion means 1 thousand million (9 zeroes) and trillion means 1 million million (12 zeroes). In other places billion means 1 million million (12 zeroes) and trillion has 18 zeroes. Confusing? Yep! Ambiguous? Yep! Much better to use the unambiguous 1,000 million.  Stepho  talk  01:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Recalls

Hello, this is referring to our addition of the large recall of Toyota vehicles. This was added since it was headline news, by a group of students working at The Mead School, who were trying to contribute to the already-impressive information we found on Wikipedia. We are sorry that Stevo felt our information was not 'earth shattering' (perhaps we should focus instead on Earthquakes!), but felt since it was at the top of the Business News, was valid information to share. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.77.5 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome interest in our work of developing Wikipedia. It would, of course be possible to encourage everyone to reproduce their city's daily news. However, that is the job of news media, including Wikinews. Our job is to publish succinct encyclopedic information on notable subjects which are not time-sensitive. For a fuller explanation, check out this page. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Echoing what Bjenks said, we welcome your input and desire to add to Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has to provide a balanced view that covers more than just recent news. The recalls may interest some people over the next month but would this year's recalls still be interesting reading in 5 years time? Even the sudden acceleration recalls a couple of years ago are hardly interesting to most people any more.  Stepho  talk  10:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Current models

User:Seqqis added lists of current Toyota models for United States/Canada, Europe and Australia/New Zealand.I removed them because

1. WP:Recentism is to be avoided (historical models are just as significant as current models)
2. Why not S.America, Asia, Africa and Russia?
3. Countries within a major region (eg Europe) can vary greatly in models offered. But if we start listing individual countries then the list will be huge.
4. The list will have to be kept up-to-date until the end of time as models change.
5. The table format looks weird with so many empty cells (more of a cleanup issue rather than outright delete).
6. It doesn't really add anything to the article - except free advertising for Toyota.

Seqqis left a comment on my talk page but it's probably better if he makes his own case here as well. Any other comments?  Stepho  talk  14:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Product Line does not include sedans

I'm sure Toyota sells "regular cars," not just SUVs, pickups and the luxury line. But they are not mentioned under the section "5 Product line". ChicagoLarry (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That section links to List of Toyota vehicles and the first sentence says "As of 2009, Toyota officially lists approximately 70 different models sold under its namesake brand, including sedans, coupes, vans, trucks, hybrids, and crossovers." Whoever wrote that section then waffles on about what interested him/her/it, namely US pickups and SUV's, which should probably be rewritten for a more balanced perspective for this overview article.  Stepho  talk  23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)