Talk:Gasoline

Edit conflict: Environmental effects of gasoline

So I read a part of this article and realized it had some presuppositions and had some text was very opinionated toward gasoline being destructive to the global environment. This particular sentence pretty much sums it up:

"Gasoline used in internal combustion engines has a significant effect on the environment, both in local effects (e.g., smog) and in global effects (e.g., effect on the climate)"

What is even more disturbing is the fact that they used a strong term "significant" which lacked clarification. Seeing that such views were a matter of controversy, I had decided to lessen this article's polarization by changing that sentence into something more or less like this:

"Although gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant effects on the local environment(e.g, smog), significant global effects(e.g, climate change), are speculated."

And significant global effects are speculated.

Four or five times, somebody would revert the article and then I would change it again. Finally, someone else somehow managed to force his opinion, and now whenever I try to edit, I get a page that says the page needs to have a "neutral point of view." But the original page was anything but neutral. It had unverifiable facts and no significant data to support them. I will not agree with you that my text was biased, but the least we can do to help Wikipedia and its reputation is reach some sort of a compromise. Perhaps this is neutral enough for Wikipedia:

"Gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant effects on the local environment(e.g, smog), and significant global effects(e.g, climate change), are speculated." ReeceTheBeast15 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Not speculated. See Global warming#Greenhouse gases. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the green house effect and global warming are both very real, but gasoline's contribution to them might only be negligible. Thus saying specifically that gasoline's global effects are significant is by no means a neutral point of view. Yes, minor global effects are not speculated. But significant global effects are. There really isn't enough data for either side to prove themselves, so all we can really do is look at the cold facts regarding what is actually happening. This could just be a normal temperature oscillation produced from a healthy natural balance. So maybe it would be all right to say "gasoline used in internal combustion engines can have significant local effects, and is a major contributor to global CO2 emissions." Because it is said constitute around 20%-50% of yearly human emissions.

If, by a natural mechanism, the stark population growth rate differences of CO2 producers and consumers can be compensated for, then the same could just as easily be done for nonliving CO2 producers. So really, this biased statement in this article is just another reason people are questioning Wikipedia's authenticity. ReeceTheBeast15 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"There really isn't enough data..." Yes there is, and I really can't be bothered with you any more. This science is settled. It was settled for me 40 years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Better Opening Picture?

The article is about the substance of gasoline, as we all know. This is more of a nitpick than anything, but could somebody find a better picture to reflect such? A picture of a tank of gasoline, the molecule of gasoline, or an infobox on the topic would work more wonders than just a Shell gas station, which is currently the preview picture for the article. It isn't too big of a deal, which is why I'm not looking for one desperately, and I'm not saying that a gas station picture isn't warranted. Just... it should probably go later in the article if it will be present. There are better images to use as a lead off than the place that sells the topic of the article. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't do the molecule because it does not exist, gasoline is a blend of many molecules. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, not sure where I was going with that example. Still though, a tank of gasoline would do nicely.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting to move to Petrol

I have read the discussions on this, but this needs to be said. Please move the page to Petrol as this is causing necessary confusion for the rest of the world. Especially school children who get confused by the word 'Gas'. As mentioned in countless discussion threads, 'Petrol' is used globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridenshark (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves for the procedure to request a page move. Before you make the formal request, you may wish to review WP:ENGVAR and WP:TITLEVAR to understand the background against which the decision will be made. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just how often are these little school children doing activities that involve petrol? Are they pumping it into their little cars on their way home from the playground for their afternoon nap? Are kindergartners unsure which pump to drive to when they see it marked 'petrol'? How do they see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals? I have a feeling that by the time these confused school children are entering late adolescence, and are possibly starting to have actual opportunities to be confused about petrol and gasoline, they will be old enough to have figured out that Americans say elevator and Brits say lift. English is a confusing language, it has many tricky words and phrases. If you're a native English speaker, you are immersed in this reality. If not, why are you insisting on reading Wikipedia in English when it's available in every language?

It really doesn't add up. And if it did, why stop there? All of Wikipedia should be changed to UK English, if the globe is filled with anglophones who are incapable of adaptation. And yet, the very fact that English is a global language means that it's used by several billion multilingual people. If anyone gets that fact that we have different words for the same thing, it's them.

You know who we need to condescend to? Who is least likely to figure out an unfamiliar word? Monolingual Americans with their failing educational systems. It's us in the US who are too provincial to deduce what petrol means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just how often are these little school children doing activities that involve petrol? Are they pumping it into their little cars on their way home from the playground for their afternoon nap? Are kindergartners unsure which pump to drive to when they see it marked 'petrol'? How do they see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals?

This is plain stupid. I don't know about the US, but the majority of English speaking population calls it as Petrol and not Gasoline. And apparently you have no clue about something called school projects. It's okay that English language is complex and evolved with different terms due to geography. But it doesn't mean that it should stay that way forever. And expecting a majority of the population to 'adapt' to a confusing term made up by a minority population, that too on a knowledge hub like Wikipedia is irresponsible. And I am not speaking this as someone who follows UK English. If I were born in the US, I would be doing the same.

One step at a time, maybe, we all can agree on one term. It's Petrol today, something else tomorrow. You either

I am not arguing this any more. I'm merely suggesting my opinions as a Wikipedian. So if you can engage in a civil conversation, please do that, instead of making this as a 'provincial' issue. - Ridenshark (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)