Jump to content

Talk:Jeep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-"Only one pick up truck"

  • In the second paragraph, first sentence, the article mentions how there is only one pick up truck in the whole Jeep brand. Then, it says it included other pick up range within Jeep. The first pick up that Jeep introduced was in 1992 and says they ave teased us with some models but there is now a 2020 Jeep pick up. It should make a solid statement that there is only one pick up in the brand Jeep.

The Marque

[edit]
  • 1st sentence: "...and the distinctive 7-bar front grill design"
  • 2nd sentence: "the distinctive Jeep grille"

Which spelling is correct? Thryduulf 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Grille is the thing on the front of a vehicle. A grill is something you cook on. --SFoskett 19:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

First SUV

[edit]

Can Cherokee really be called "the original SUV", with the Range Rover being introduced four years earlier? Mind, the RR didn't get introduced into the North American market, where the SUV term originated, until years later. Harald Hansen 07:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One might also refer to the Jeepster as the first SUV... --SFoskett 18:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
The compact 4x4s introduced in 1983 by GM (S-10 Blazer/S-15 Jimmy), Ford (Bronco II) and AMC (Cherokee) were, as far as I know, the first vehicles to have the "SUV" term attached to them. In a sense you could say the XJ Cherokee is "the original SUV", as it pioneered the SUV name and many of the technologies used in today's SUVs (unibody, etc.). However I would say the original '63 Wagoneer was the "original SUV", as it was the first (relatively) popular utility vehicle designed specfifically as a somewhat-luxurious family vehicle rather than an offroad truck for farmers and enthusiasts. --93JC 20:25, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
My 1974 Jeep Technical Service Manual uses the term "Sport Utility" to describe the then all-new Cherokee. I would say that the '40s Willys 4x4 all-steel station wagon was the original SUV, with the 1963 Wagoneer being the first true LUXURY SUV (four-wheel drive, independent suspension, OHC engine, automatic transmission, power steering, air conditioning). --Plasticboob 13 Jun, 2007
The 1945 CJ-2A could be described as the first SUV. The term Sports Utility Vehicle is really only a name used in the US and has no precise definition and little meaning anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumpyoldman1959 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chevrolet Suburban was introduced for the 1935 model year and is most definitely an SUV. The first Jeep SUV was the 1946 Willys wagon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeep Galleries

[edit]

211.245.243.189 pulled the model images and made a gallery seperate from here. Personally, I liked the pictures of the Models in the article and I think they add to it. What I am looking for is comments. Terry 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche

[edit]

What about the Jeep Comanche truck?

[edit]

I have removed a series of three commercial links since 1) they were commercial, 2) they were boldfaced, 3) they are the only additions made to the site by this user (based on the IP address, which is all that is available, and 4) the user placed them at the top of the "External links" list and later moved down other links that appeared above his (her) commercial links. To me, this looks like blatant commercial plugging, so I've removed it. --Badger151 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the jeep name

[edit]

The discussion on the development of the WWII army jeep may not have discussed vehicles bearing the jeep nameplate, but I'd like to see some concensus before it is removed. Arguably, there would be no Jeep nameplate if the army jeep hadn't been developed. So, I've reverted the deletion. --Badger151 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wording below is very confusing: "saying that the vehicle was designed for, was never referred to as "GP", and that the name may have been derived from referring to the vehicle as GP (G, and P to designate)." Mike (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing the cartoon-character origin of the "Jeep" name to R. Lee Ermey is a huge error per WP:RECENTISM. I was raised in a Navy family, my father having served as an officer in USN Seabees in the Pacific from 1941 to 1946, and again during the Korean War. My father shared the cartoon character "Jeep" name origin story with me in the late 1960s. It is quite possible, if not probable, that both the cartoon character and "GP" origin stories are true, and that the cartoon character contributed to the almost instant widespread popularity of the Jeep name among military personnel in 1941. Ermey joined the Marine Corps in 1978; any knowledge he would have would be second or third-hand, having heard the origin story from older Marines. By the 1970s, the World War II era Jeep had already passed into military legend. As the article presently stands, none of this is properly sourced per WP:V and WP:RS, and this deserves a significant re-write. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


An old timer told me a reason soldiers started calling it a Jeep because many times they were damaged or needed to be lightened to carry more troops or equipment, go faster or navigate slippy territory. Parts such as windshields, shades and spare tires, etc were thrown aside and abandoned. (much like today) 

A common saying/joke when army mechanics were ordered to do this was to leave= "J.ust E.very E.ssential P.art" , thus the name became JEEP.  Braxon356 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first jeep

[edit]

I added two existing photos of military jeeps in this section. The first is the Bantam (right image), the next is the Willys (left image). I thought they fit well with article text. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes! :) Oscar Arias 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete this sentence//Genericized Trademark Info

[edit]

The term is also used to refer generically to what are now known as SUVs, whether the vehicle in question bears the Jeep nameplate or not.

That sentence is false, no one who drives a ford explorer calls it a Jeep, they call it an SUV. Road guy 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "needs citation" reference and it was responded to, but I still disagree with the statement. All the support simply shows that the term was (past tense) used generically in WWI. There does not seem to be any support for this claim today. --Robb0995 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just coldn't take it. I dropped the whole part about the genericized trademark. The support added yesterday made it even more clear that there is no present-day issue with the trademark. Only if there were documented supported that today SUVs are generically referred to as "jeeps" would the deleted content make sense. In the course of deleting this info, there was some mention of the first WWI/WWII vehicles, but that info is already covered in the "origin" section. If you really want to make it clear that the term was once generically used, it seems to make more sense in this section than in the article head. --Robb0995 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the comment in the head about jeep being a "genericized trademark". Particularly when the next section goes on at some detail about the origins of the name. It is very clear that the word was used in a non-trademarked way prior to its use as a trademark. What we have here is a generic, or maybe functional, term being converted to a trademark, not the other way around. (While the "GP" was clearly a Ford designation rather than an abbreviation for "General Purpose", it is credible that those using jeeps in that era assumed that it meant General Purpose.) If any reference is actually needed in the head, it should be something along the lines of "While 'jeep' was used in World War II to refer to vehicles manufactured by three different vendors, it is now a registered trademark of <whoever-the-hell-it-is-now>". Vanhorn (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I hear allot of people call offroad vehicles jeeps especially foreign vehicles such as Toyotas and landrovers... I hear it allot on European videos/ tv... 75.73.159.49 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone call that kind of vehicle a SUV. They're either jeeps, landrovers or 4 by 4s. It needs mentioning in the opening that the thing people most commonly call jeeps is at the suv article whilst this is about the jeep make of jeeps.

Perhaps in the US, but here in Europe - particularly the UK - Jeep is a relatively common term for any kind of small recreational 4x4. The Suzuki Jimny springs to mind. Nobody, but nobody, calls their 4x4 an SUV. a_man_alone (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky commercial linkspam

[edit]

User:65.6.213.240 cleverly added the same link to the Non-official sites list twice, once as a blatant addition, and once, in another location in the same list, with a byline. I reproduce the links here (having scrambled them some, so as to prevent their replacement via copy-and-paste). No doubt she or he will be back.

  • [bttp://ww,autotrucktoys,com/jeep/ Jeep Accessories] - Jeep accessories, facts, history, info and parts reviews.
  • [bttp://ww,autotrucktoys,com/jeep/ Jeep Accessories]

--Badger151 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing model: Jeepster, Jeepster-Commando, Commando

[edit]

There is a missing Jeep model, the Jeepster (later Jeepster Commando and later Commando) made in the 1950's, and later in 1967-1973. The Jeepster was similar to a modern SUV in size. Can someone (or should I do a little research for exact dates) and add the Jeepster? 162.83.81.166 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I noticed the external links section here seems to be a bt out of control! I removed some links that appeared to be just about selling jeeps or parts (and one site that wasn't in English). But the rest of the section is also very out of line with the Wikipedia external links guidelines. There seem to be a lot of small fansites here, which aren't really encyclopedic in their nature. If there are sites that the majority of jeep enthusaists use then they may be appropriate, but most of these seem to have a few hundred members, some a few thousand - none appear to be the sort of authoritative site that desreves a listing in an encyclopedia.....

I'd like to remove the following:

  • JeepGuide: Tutorials, Pictures, Tools, Reviews, Prices, etc - Everything is listed as "Coming soon", at the moment it seems to just be a Google adsense revenue generating site.
  • International Full Size Jeep Assn -Seems like another enthusiast site. More traffic than most, but still relatively limited.
  • JeepForum.com — Jeep Enthusiast Website and Forums - According to the guidelines, in general forums are not appropriate to link to.
  • Jeep Reviews - There's nothing on the site that talks about who created it and why, so its reliability is questionable. But if it's a very well known and highly respected site in the jeep community (i.e. most editors here had heard of it from somewhere other than Wikipedia, and think it's good), then it should stay.
  • www.g503.com Ford GPW & Willys MB -On the surface it looks like a good enthusiasts site, with more "registered members" than most. But there's not much movement in the wiki or blog, leaving me wondering how well known the site is - again, do editors of these pages know this site from somewhere other than Wikipedia?
  • Poem about the Jeep- Home of the Jeep ~ Butler, Pa. Doesn't really seem encyclopedic.
  • Jeep Gallery- Thousands of Jeep pictures. -Seems to be a minor site (claims less than 500 registered users) and is heavily supported by adsense advertising. Content doesn't seem better tahn any of the other similar sites.
  • MoJeepin.com- Forums, news, installs and product reviews. Again - less than 500 registered users. seems like a minor site with nothing particularly unique to add".
  • 42FordGPW.com- More than 73 megabytes/2000+ files pertaining to WW2 jeeps and other related topics. - As above, seems like another minor fan site.
  • The M151 Mutt (Military Unit Tactical Truck) - While this actually has some information in it, it's nothing that can't be (or isn't already) in the article.
  • Jeep Gallery -A gallery of images on an ad-supported site. We ought to link to wikimedia commons instead and encourage GFDL'd images?
  • How The Jeep Got its Name -A commercial site with an OK essay that tells us nothing that can't be in the article anyway
  • The 4x4 Forum for Michigan and Surrounding Great Lakes. -Appears to be a site for people in the Great Lakes region, which is pretty linited for a Wikipedia, with its International mandate!
  • Jeepin.com - The Jeep Enthusiasts' Website. Another enthusaists site. Dosn't seem to be any different from the rest.
  • Jeeps-Offroad.com - Jeep Enthusiast Forums, Tech Articles, & Reviews Another enthusiasts site. Doesn't seem to be any different from the rest.

This would basically get rid of the entire section. Other opinions? --Siobhan Hansa 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This link:

was added back in. It's from a website that appears to be being promoted on Wikipedia by the author, although it's an anon IP that added this link. I don't see the encyclopedic value. Though I appreciate Jeeps evoke strong emotional attachment for many people it still doesn't seem like this particular link deserves to be on an encyclopedia article. I wanted to see if other Jeep editors have seen this poetry quoted anywhere else in relation to jeeps? Or think it is in some other way encyclopedic? Or there is a strong consensus to just keep it anyway. If not I'll keep deleting it. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spammy, it's not irrelevant, and I do feel it adds an angle. I'd keep it. Poweroid 15:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think g503 and the International FSJ Assoc. can be put back in. I have heard of these outside of WP. g503 is one of the best MB/GPW sites out there, and the FSJ page has a pretty good tech section. --Sable232 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the timlines of the M38A1, M38A1C, and M38A1D. The years that were previously published were the military service life, and not the production years. -Avalon01

[edit]

Not having a caption for logos is a Wiki guideline - or a suggestion - and the "Jeep" logo is an obvious logo -- it is not placed in this article as advertising, marketing, spam. or because of various other promotional conflicts of interest. Therefore, it does not need a caption stating that this logo is a "Jeep logo". The "Jeep" name used by the company is not an obscure design that needs an explanation. Furthermore, this caption has been removed by a number of editors, yet a minority seems to keep bringing it back for unsupported reasons. CZmarlin 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Captions#Special situations -- CZmarlin 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks - whatever the merits - edit warring over it is not good for the article. Discuss different wording here or get some independent input. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeep logo is clearly identified as a registered trademark. It has the symbol in the lower right corner. This is an indication of its role as an official logo. There is no "guessing" what this image represents. Therefore, there is no need to identify this symbol with a caption that it is a logo. The Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that no caption is needed with current images of logos. Please also stop adding captions to logos in other articles. They are all following Wikipedia guidelines. The placement of images of logos within the articles only helps explain and describe the subject of the article. This function is NOT advertising. It does serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you -- CZmarlin 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of models

[edit]

Let's aim for more models having a photo, so people can have a quick visual reference. --Plasticboob 13 Jun 2007

Do we really need to include every variant of every vehicle in the list? I think the trim packages can be adressed in the article for the truck on which they were available. If there's no objections, I'll remove them. --Sable232 17:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added photos for many of the models and updated their trim packages. VX1NG (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list needs to include the Ford GPW along with the Willys MB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.178.54.102 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeep logo.png

[edit]

Image:Jeep logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeepnewlogo.PNG

[edit]

Image:Jeepnewlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some discussion here about the use of "jeep" as an adjective applied to military vehicles. About half of the aircraft carriers in use by the US navy at the end of WWII were of a type referred to as jeep carriers. These were much smaller than fleet and escort carriers and were used to ferry aircraft into combat in the Pacific and to escort convoys in the Atlantic. They rarely saw combat. They were armed with a single 5" gun, carried about 35 aircraft, were entirely unarmored, and typically carried no bombs or torpedos (in the Pacific). They were mostly converted Liberty ships and my recollection is that they displaced about 6000 tons and had a top speed of 17 knots (could be wrong about specs).

But they were nearly always referred to as "jeep carriers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.114.167 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep trail information moved

[edit]

There was an inappropriate paragraph in the lead section talking about jeep trails. It doesn't belong in an article about Jeeps themselves. I moved it to a new article, Jeep trail, and linked it from the "see also" section. I searched and couldn't find any article about off-road trails under several different titles that I tried. I don't know if that's the best title for that article - perhaps a subject expert can rename if it necessary. But it certainly should be in a separate article, not here. -dmmaus 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Concepts

[edit]

So far I've been unable to track down any information whatsoever on the "Cherokee Targa," or "Jeep Aggressor," both listed as Jeep concepts. Anyone have more info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSaturos90 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a picture over on this web site. http://www.jeepnotes.com/Default.aspx?Page=jeep-cherokee-targa The Jeep Cherokee Targa reminds me of the Jeep Commanche mixed with a Wrangler, a truck like Jeep with a hard removal top. Alexia Smith (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Comments

[edit]

This is to report a global spelling error that has resulted in the mispronunciation of Willy's to Willis. Mahindra Tractor in a commercial says they produced Willis jeeps during WW II. Richard Rawlings of Discovery Channel's Fast and Loud called a '41 coupe a Willis. If memory serves me Willys did use an apostrophy (') in their logo but it was small. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan4th50 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Someone keeps changing the Production years of the M38A1 to the years it was used in the military. I've changed it back. Avalon01 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


How can you have an article on the Jeep without citing the individual who invented the Jeep? The same person who was awarded the utility patent for the Jeep. Anyone ever heard of Colonel Byron Q. Jones?

Also, Jeep did not originate from 'General Purpose' but rather 'Governmental Purpose' which is a classification given to many military vehicles. GP=Jeep

Just a thought - ICarriere

the 'inventor' (not really correct word) would be its designer Karl Probst.
According to this article, Byron Q. Jones filed the patent so the government would have control and not have to pay royalties. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The designation of G.P. is not for 'General Purpose'. GP (W) - In 1941, G = "Government(regardless of year), P = 80" wheelbase Reconnaissance Car, and the W = apparently means Willys pattern". (ref http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/99-09/0764.html)

What Car company is IH? We could add link. Rmhermen 13:23 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Rmhermen, Answer: International Harvester - I assume this is/was an American car/truck/farm equipment maker..

I'm just starting to fumble my way around here; thanks for fixing my fixes in Toledo, Ohio!

Later, Chris

Didn't know International Harvester ever made passenger vehicles. I just checked and International Harvester is a "was" In 1983 the tractor division merged with Case and the truck division became Navistar. Rmhermen

Do we need separate pages for jeep, the military vehicle and Jeep the line of civilian vehicles? Rmhermen 14:12 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

yes IH certainly made 4x4 vehicles. The International Scout from the 1960s would be an example. Similar running gear to a CJ-5 but a slightly larger vehicle.

Rmhermen, thank you for your excellent updates here and to the Willys page.

I would think that the military and civilian vehicles are common enough up until the late 1970s that a single page could cover them. Things split up after that what with the Army buying Blazers and the Jeep turning into the Wrangler, Cherokee, Eagle... and spawning the SUV era. I have always seen that as the end of the era. Blazers and hummvs have little in common with Jeeps beyond 4wd, the blazer in particular being built on a Chevvy pickup chassis.

My two cents. Kat 16:18 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Hi everybody,

Let me try to answer some questions taken above.

  • Jeep is a trademark - actually belongs to DaimlerChrysler. The name originates from G. P. i.e. General Purpose - the abreviation is a typical US military slang (such as G.I. Joe, for instance).

--This is a Major misconception--
G.P. Does not stand for General Purpose. Read 1st paragraph above.--Terry 15:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although there are tendencies for the word to be genericized, this word is still protected by trademark laws of different countries. Accordingly, only DaimlerChrysler is entitled to use the mark Jeep. No other all-road 4-wheel-drive vehicles are "Jeeps", not even a Mitsubishi Pajero or a Chevrolet Blazer.

--Actually Ford made 250,000 "Jeeps" during WWII. Ford lost the initial contract to Willy to develop them but was given an award to build the exact same model that Willy developed. Point is that DC is the current Trademark holder and thus not the only holder of the "Jeep" trademark. --Terry 15:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the beginning, a call for a bid had been made by the US Army. The loser company - called American Bantam - used this abbreviation first when it offered his Army Reconaissance Truck to the Army. The winner of the bid was Willys. If anybody is interested in, I am ready to offer a detailed timeline, how the original Jeep trademark went from a company to another.

(such as Willys-Overland, Kaiser, AMC, Renault and Chrysler).

The trademark was awarded to Willys-Overland in 1950. They took Ford to court to win this.

Hi everybody Millisits

Not so fast on Jeep not coming from the abbreviation for General Purpose. Things get a little more confusing when you through in the documentary short "The Autobiography of a Jeep" from WWII. If you have the documentary Memphis Belle on VHS (yes, I'm not talking about the movie that came out in the late '80s, early '90s but a documentary from '44), then check it and see if this short is on the end or even included. My copy on VHS is a 1995 rerelease from Alpha Video Distributors, and I just checked the short to see what was said back during the war concerning the name. The short was made by United Films and claims that the nickname jeep came from the first letters of General Purpose. This is something from the war actually claiming the phonetics of GP became jeep. However, as I said it becomes more confusing as this short appears to have been directed towards the public.

"Autobiography of a Jeep" is a propaganda movie (a corny one at that) made to make the Moms and Pops back home happy. The GP(W) was always the Ford model name for the jeep they built. The General Purpose meme is bogus.

This page really needs to conform to other automobile pages. Jeep is a brand of car, not a generic term. There needs to be a place to chronicle the military jeep, but there also needs to be a different place for the marque. I propose using "Jeep" for the car brand (since that's the trademark) and "Army jeep" for the military vehicles. Thoughts? --Sfoskett 18:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Sfoskett, Thanks for your sympathy to my lines. I think, however, that this is a case of temporary'genericization of trademarks, so, this is not a disambiguation case. Since "Jeep" and the proposed "Army Jeep" belong to the same story, I think only one (the existing) entry would do. (Let me tell you a similar case. In Hungary (my homeland)in my youth there was a shortage in razor blades (see: 1984 of George Orwell). No original Gillette blades were available and people used the word "zsilett" ("Gillette" pronounced in Hungarian) as a sinonym of all kinds of razor blades. For young generation, it is a clearcut case: Gillette blades etc are being marketed in the country and everybody knows that Gillette is a brand.)

--Millisits

OK, so how about we move the military stuff to a section and make the page primarily about the modern car brand? We can disambiguate right on the page and provide links to other historical models if needed. But the page has got to link to the Cherokee, Liberty, Wrangler, etc as well. I'll do it this week. --SFoskett 16:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, what do you think? Clear? --SFoskett 18:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Jeep as civilian vehicle?

[edit]

In the first episode of Life on Mars (U.S. TV series), the main character is seemingly transported back in time from 2008 to 1973. When he makes reference to driving his Jeep, a 1973 person asks, "You were driving a military vehicle?" This raised the question: when did Jeep begin to refer to a civilian vehicle, not just a military vehicle? I can't tell from this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably when they introduced the Civilian Jeep (CJ) in 1945. Apparently the show's writers never bothered to do any research. --Sable232 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a surplus glut of Jeeps returning to the U.S. after WWII which could be bought very cheaply which had a lot to do with their rise in popularity with civilians but it also split the purchasing market by lowering demand for the actual civilian/farm models being produced at the time. My grandfather bought one of the surplus models for the farm which my father and uncles got a big kick out of it (along with the surplus British Enfield rifle). Those jeeps had a rigorous maintenance schedule however ..you had to perform a long list of tasks including repack all the wheel bearings every 3000 miles. That was also true of the CJ-3 civilian models.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeep is often used as a generic military term, example "Beijing / Chinese Jeep" or "Russian Jeep". The page for the original vehicle that popularized the term is actually Willys MB, while its successor M151 was also called a jeep, and performed the same function. Light Utility Vehicle is a modern generic term for this class of vehicle used in military conference, and this article is a survey of all vehicles which might be called a jeep in military terms. I would guess that in common historical usage, the term Jeep is used more often as a military term rather than as a trademark, but that may well be a matter of dispute. Willys MB is certainly not the most obvious way a person would look for information on what was commonly simply called a "jeep" in the most significant war of the 20th century. If you turned jeep in a military history article to a link, it's not clear whether the article is about a family of vehicles, a single historical vehicle, or a trademarked nameplate, and its generic use keeps on popping up and getting removed. There appear to be no links in the current article to Willys MB, Light Utility Vehicle, or M151 Mutt. Bachcell (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I yam what I yam?

[edit]

Came across another theory on the origin of "jeep" here: WW1 Army slang for any new vehicle. IDK if this qualifies as reliable, tho... It does appear the site sourced it from somewhere else (a Maj E. P. Hogan is named), so it might be possible to track it down. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeps around the world

[edit]

There is locally South Korea assembled Shinjin Jeep which started building in November 1969. See at 기업연혁: 신진자동차 (Daewoo Bus Company History: Shinjin Motors). Rjluna2 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my outline for what I plan to add to this article

[edit]

I. Lift Kits 

   A.Suspension Lifts
   B.Body Lifts

II.Tires 

   A.Tread Width
   B.Rim Width
   C.Tire Height
   D.Tread Depth

III.Jacks and Spares 

   A.Jacks
   B.Spares

IV.Snorkel Kits 

   A.Purposes
   B.Advantages

V.Tops 

   A.Hard Tops
   B.Soft Tops

VI.Winches 

   A.Purposes
   B.Types

VII.Lighting 

   A.Purposes
   B.What there used for

VIII.Fender Flares 

   A.Purposes
   B.What there used for

IX.Bumpers 

   A.Purposes
   B.Styles

X.Performance Chips 

   A.Purposes
   B.How they improve your vehicle  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Douglass (talk • contribs) 21:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off-road vehicle? Pfaughhh.

[edit]

Beyond dubious, demonstrably false. Even if we exclude steam tractors and traction_engines, Holt_tractors and Lombard_Steam_Log_Haulers, we still have Four_Wheel_Drive, and the nash/Jeffery_Quad, to say nothing of the Bantam.Anmccaff (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M-151, Bantam, GPW

[edit]

Given that this article is, for all practical purposes, a rollup of US (and related) Military (and related) Quarter-tons (and related,) why does it so prominently link with whatever Chrysler is calling itself this month? The article appears to center on the small-j jeep, not the (ob. tendentious wording) hijacked trademark.Anmccaff (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep-the-marque...

[edit]

...hasn't been primarily a "defense company" since well before Chrysler acquired it; should that category be there? Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The following quotation should not be included in the lead, as it is WP:UNDUE.

The spartan, cramped, and unstintingly functional jeep became the ubiquitous World War II four-wheeled personification of Yankee ingenuity and cocky, can-do determination.

What do others think? 17:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

BRC vs Willis MB

[edit]

CZmarlin) (Reverted good faith edits by Anmccaff: 1- Provide better navigation for readers. 2- Avoid a redirect to the MB article that explains the history of the oriiginal vehicle. 3- This is not the place to make statements about the Bantam BRC-4 des...)

I have to disagree. Placing misinformation to smooth navigation is a Bad Idea. This leaves the reader with the mis-impression that Willys designed the Jeep.

Now, It'd be better if the link went straight into the early history, rather than to the beginning of the article as a whole, but that's another story. Anmccaff (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not misinformation, but a direct Wikilink to an article about the wartime vehicle. There is no article by the name of "Bantam BRC-40" in WP. The Willys MB article includes the history behind the design and production of this vehicle. Both Bantam and Willys attempted to meet the stringent specifications requested by the U.S. military, and the War Department essentially owned the design. Yes, this type of detail could be rewritten at the beginning of that article. Nevertheless, WP guidelines state to avoid linking that results in a redirect as well as generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects (WP:NOPIPEDLINK). Moreover, please observe the first rule of hatnotes: that they must link directly to other article(s), and not to a redirect. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nahh. It's like rolling the (needed) link for Pony car into Camaro. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

[edit]

Could somebody add the Start date and age template from "|foundation = 1941" to "| foundation = {Start date and age|1941}"? 

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Jeep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term

[edit]

Search in WorldCat: http://www.worldcat.org/title/words-of-the-fighting-forces-a-lexicon-of-military-terms-phrases-terms-of-argot-cant-jargon-and-slang-used-by-the-armed-forces-of-the-united-states-of-america/oclc/33265075&referer=brief_results

Search in Pentagon library: https://p94008.eos-intl.net/P94008/OPAC/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx?TaskCode=1243907&TitleListPageSize=30&CatLevel0Value=&CatLevel1Value=&CatLevel2Value=&CatLevel3Value=&CatLevel4Value=

--L.Willms (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep Gladiator (JT) Pickup truck

[edit]

2018 Los Angeles Auto Show. See Jeep Wrangler (JL)#Pickup truck.--188.194.57.99 (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new article has to be created. Thanks.--188.194.57.99 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create redirect to common noun

[edit]

Wikipedia is out of step with common language. People worldwide use "jeep" for offroad vehicles of a type similar to the old Jeeps. Wikipedia does not take this into consideration. One looks up here, at SUV, at four-by-four, but the term "jeep" is not explained as such anywhere and as a consequence, links are not available. This brand-related approach is too narrow. Please address the issue. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I just found it on Wiktionary: jeep. Is that enough...? Arminden (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have introduced a sentence containing the link to the Wiktionary page and an explanation similar to what is written there. It has been reverted almost immediately. I will park it here, now do as you like.
"In day-to-day language, jeep has become a common noun for four-wheel drive vehicles resembling the original World War II Jeep." Arminden (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section in the article titled Proper noun (not as you try to pipe it as "common noun") that uses Chevrolet as an example because it applies to the use of the "Jeep" that is also a registered trademark:
  • Chevrolet is similarly a proper name referring to a specific company. But unlike Microsoft, it is also used in the role of a common noun to refer to products of the named company: "He drove a Chevrolet" (a particular vehicle); "The Chevrolets of the 1960s" (classes of vehicles). In these uses, Chevrolet does not function as a proper name.[23]
This is a one reason your contribution has been removed from this article. Jeep is a registered trademark (not a common noun) although it is sometimes used informally as a genericized trademark just like Kleenex is for facial tissue. Cheers - CZmarlin (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over topic of article

[edit]

This article can't seem to decide whether it's about the history of type of vehicle known as a "jeep" or about the current Jeep brand/manufacturer, and doesn't clearly explain the relationship between the two. The lead begins by saying the article is about the current manufacturer, but then slips back and forth between that and talking about the history of jeeps. Super confusing. GeoEvan (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

[edit]

Please change the location Jeep is In Ann Arbor, Michigan Whoistravon (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Sable232 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

[edit]

I read here that “Jeeps sold as surplus, in crates, was merely a myth. That is an error! During the early to mid 1960s I was growing up on a ranch in California. My father purchased two! Granted, they weren’t $50 as advertised in the back of many magazines of the era, but they were new, and in wooden crates! Absolutely everything but fuel was in the crates! Minor assembly such as mounting wheels, tires, seats, top, filling the battery with acid etc was required but didn’t take long or much effort. The first Jeep was the flat fender type the second was the rounded M38a1 version. The prices were $225 and $300 respectively. I remember that distinctly as my father complained about it for years! Much of that cost was shipping. I learned to drive because of those Jeeps. My best friend in high school got one for $5. Yes five dollars! His father was retired military and apparently had connections. I helped my friend uncrate and assemble his. He still has it to this day! They were extremely common back then. A Boy Scout camp nearby had two and a retreat for Nuns in the Catholic church, also nearby had several... (one at a time) for the maintenance crew. It won’t take much research to verify my claims. 2600:8800:5C85:1C00:8D8E:8D95:4CF3:6C52 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To include any of this we would need reliable secondary sources. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"OIIIIIIIO" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect OIIIIIIIO and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#OIIIIIIIO until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 22:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

[edit]

Birth place of the Jeep is my home town. Butler, PA 16001 The original building still stands 24.154.20.173 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brand, trademarks and image

[edit]

Article states that the Jeep name was copyrighted in 1930. The correct term is trademarked. Works are copyrighted, brand names are trademarked. 98.97.36.107 (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy

[edit]

I think it should be added that Jeep filed for bankruptcy. https://apple.news/AW_VVGmQMSTSECcRobvlp9g GamerKlim9716 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous owners

[edit]

Chrysler Corporation, DaimlerChrysler, Chrysler Group LLC and FCA US LLC should be added to the previous owners section. 2601:2C6:5000:92F0:52B:75CA:C9CD:9202 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeep&oldid=1218142474"