Talk:Renault

=> I am sorry if you felt upset by what I wrote, but I have never accused you, only mentioned some third party assessments, based on several modifications like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renault&diff=639122385&oldid=639096407 As to me, I have tried to defend you on the contrary, and that is why I have proposed you to write a new article also. So, you are really, really wrong by thinking that would not "like" you. Have a nice day. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

=> Thank you to remind "assume good faith", but strangely enough you do not remind that to Urbanoc when he accuses me to be pro-Renault, pro-French, to have and "agenda", and "advocacy" and all the other important and false accusations. I am not like that at all. So you oblige me to remind you that you don't remind "assume good faith" either to Chales01 when he states that citing the Renault building in Swindon is a part of the UK culture and design (given Grade*II) would be a 'corporate' release, whereas it is a purely British association that supported that. I know that you always support these people, and help them to deny all my true and relevant information, and even accuses me yourself, but are all wrong. So please, "assume good faith" you too. As noticed Charles01, it is a "war", and indeed it is just a group of people that blocks systematically some true and positive inputs, that attacks one man, that asks 120% more references for Renault than for VW or Ford etc. and uses that to say that the Renault article counts too many characters precisely because of that (!), that "raises" some rules for Renault to limit it, but not the same for some other companies, that adds a tabloid source showing and speaking about a music band "cage a googoo" to laugh at this company, adds some links to Chevrolet Corvet instead of Renault Alliance etc... As you perfectly know that I am good faith and that after all these people actions nobody would trust anymore these people. But please, stop accusing me, I continue the study, and I follow all the blocking constraints etc. They blocked the article, what is not a normal situation for such a long time. Urbanoc blocks the input of Schweitzer in spite of 2 Universities sources, all what I add is blocked systematically, with "advocacy" accusation with no proofs except some biased personal opinions. My inputs about the innovations are true, but blocked. Etc. Once again, I am a PhD and Professor, my articles in English are published in some professional reviews and more public magazines (yet Charles01 claims that my level in English is not good enough and ask my nationality), and I have certainly no agenda. The article about Renault is really biased in a bad way, and WP supports that and some books are edited from this biased contents. It is not a little thing. Cheers. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to object to something on grounds that are not even being proposed in the first place. Shortening the article is not being proposed, so a fear of the article being shortened isn't a valid reason for your stance.Your concerns about the tabloid source that said something about "caging a googoo" are irrelevant, as the source was not used to introduce any actually bad content to the article. And I remind you again, that you having a PhD give you no special status in these discussions. (Especially since you edit anonymously - anybody could claim that.) If anything, these sorts of comments you rely on will probably only serve to annoy and alienate other editors. Stop carrying on about things that are beside the point. This is why your discussions never get anywhere, too much other crap gets in the way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

=> I proposed a relevant input for the "Renault Distribution Centre" : simple and with source, and in between, only some false accusations, instead of answering to my request about the "Renault Distribution Centre". So don't accuse me, please. Have a nice day or evening. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That has absolutely no relevance to what I'm saying or what we're talking about. Even if you were right, you do realize other people doing things that are wrong would not justify your wrong-doings, correct? "Two wrongs don't make a right", as they say. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSPIRACY + WP:IKNOW + WP:OTHERSTUFF = WP:NOTHERE. Vrac (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I really think Vrac's idea of splitting history into its own article has sense, as it has been made before. Renault history is indeed quite complex, but many details has no direct relation with the current operation of the company. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

=> You ignore all my arguments and refuse to answer, because they are good, so read what is at "11:59, 14 March 2015". The main purpose of the main article is precisely to tell the history not only what is actual, and so your claim is a total non-sense. History is not only the actual operation ! Anyway, it has no sense to make this request only for Renault, whereas VW has a 50% shorter history, an history text as long as the Renault one yet, and the same people who want to remove the main part of the Renault article, does not do that for Ford etc., so it is obviously a deliberate unequal treatment of the articles. You always say, "we will do it in the other articles too, but you never do that in GM, Ford, VW etc.", so these false promises are an obvious unequal treatment and bias, with a purpose. 83.157.24.224 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As you've already been told multiple times, what is happening at the VW article has no bearing on this article, and editors have no responsibility to address problems that may be at the VW article. And all of your empty claims of bias have been debunked, and will lead you to another block if you don't drop it as you've been instructed. You cannot just default to "bias" whenever you don't agree with the opposing side's stance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renault during WW2

I noticed significant differences in the WW2 history of Renault. In the french version of the article Renault produced tanks for the nazis wich led to sanctions whereas in the english one he produced only trucks. I do not feel confident enough to restore the proper historical version, but I will indicate this source https://www.humanite.fr/politique/collaboration-renault-arrete-ton-char-485955 and https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/11/21/01016-20121121ARTFIG00576-bataille-d-historiens-sur-la-collaboration-de-renault.php The Renault family is trying to rehabilitate their ancestor by rewriting history with the help of an historian married into the family. The allies bombed four times the Renault plant, it was not because of trucks. They were even building an undergroud factory up to a month before the Liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:9D3:B400:1C6E:AE46:E85E:3B69 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is just the contrary of what you say, there is a concerted effort in France to exagerate the Louis Renault role in the German war effort. The French Wikipedia article is quite bad and factually incorrect, as Renault did not produce tanks for the Germans during the war, it assembled trucks and repaired existing materiel. Most sources on the topic written in French are quite biased to the Gaullist and Communist stance at the time, which tried to pretend Renault was especially guilty to justify the illegal takeover of his company. The fact is almost all French manufacturing companies produced things for the Germans, some less reticently (as Peugeot, Berliet or indeed Renault), some by force (as Citroën). Now, the French perspective can be added as a minority view (from an English-language side) in the relevant section, attributing the French historians (if they're relevant), as Wikipedia isn't censored. And, at the end of the day, there's no a "proper" interpretation of the events. --Urbanoc (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RENAULT LOGO.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Renault Megane RS, IAA 2017 IMG 0411.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Model numbers

When the Renault 4, 8, 10 and 16 were introduced, the model numbers were derived from the CV rating of the engine used. This continued for a while, but the system broke down when new models had engines of similar CV rating as another model; so instead, gaps in the sequence were filled in. Can we find a source describing this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)