Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 3

Lead section problems

There are several problems with the lead. Firstly, it's too long and provides too much information for a lead section. Hopefully the editing proces will solve this. Second, I'll outline some problems below:

A motorcycle (or motorbike) is a single-track, two-wheeled vehicle powered by an engine. Styles of motorcycles vary depending on the task for which they are designed, such as long distance travel and on or off-road conditions. Motorcycles are among the least expensive and most widespread forms of motorised transport in many parts of the world.

This is actully fine as an opening paragraph and should probably stay.

Many countries define classes of motorcycles with differing compliance codes and licensing fees for each category. Common categories include mopeds (< 50cc), small motorcycles (<125cc) and an unrestricted category. Many small motorcycles such as scooters or pocket bikes may be classed as a moped or a motorcycle depending on the jurisdiction.

This is unsourced. It may be appropriate for the lead or could be put into a section of the article.

The largest market for motorcycles is the Asia Pacific; where the underbone style is popular; with a 51% share of all units sold globally. Second is the United States (21%) where larger motorcycles are more popular and Europe (20%) where both larger and smaller motorcycles are popular.

This section is unsourced and inappropriate for a lead section. If properly sourced it should be included in a sub-section.

In the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand motorbike is synonymous with motorcycle. Motorcycles are also referred to as bikes in many countries.

This should be in the first paragraph. I believe originally it was until the "Worldview" edits occured.

Most motorcycles have a petrol engine supported by a frame and two large wheels. The rider is seated and controls the speed of the motorcycle by gears and the throttle. The rider steers the motorcycle with the handlebars or indirectly by leaning the motorcycle. A motorcycle stays upright by a combination of steering and leaning on the part of the driver that zeros the torque on the center of gravity about the points of contact with the ground due to gravity and centrifugal forces in turns.

This paragraph is just unnecessary and contributes to the top heavyness of the lead. It also contains unsourced and factually innacurate information. Motorcycles don't steer by leaning, they steer by countersteering. This has been scientifically proven and is taught by the MSF.

Let's try to tone down the rhetoric and get back to improving the article. A motorcycle/motorbike is the same no matter which country you ride it in. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

"A motorcycle/motorbike is the same no matter which country you ride it in." That's the problem - it's not true. In Australia a motorcycle is defined in the Australian Road Rules (ARR)-

"motor bike means a motor vehicle with 2 wheels, and includes: (a) a 2-wheeled motor vehicle with a sidecar attached to it that is supported by a third wheel; and (b) a motor vehicle with 3 wheels that is ridden in the same way as a motor vehicle with 2 wheels." So trikes, sidecars/outfits, mopeds and scooters are all motorcycles. However, licencing is a State matter, so in some states any class of licence is permitted for a motorcycle of 50 ml and speed limited to <50k m/h. (Commonly referred to as mopeds). In other states all vehicles defined as motor bikes in the ARR with a power output >200W must be ridden only by persons with a valid motorcycle licence or motorcycle learners licence. All motor vehicles require registration and insurance (Third Party). This is in marked contrast to Europe. For example in the Russian Federation, anyone aged 14 years or older may ride a motorcycle of <50 ml and speed limited to >50 km/h (referred to either as а мокик or мини-роллер) with no requirement for licences, registration or insurance. M-72 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had already pointed this out to him by striking that comment, where he informed me that instead I should bicker about it, and add to the argumentative tone of this page.--Budlight 14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tire section

I've changed the title of this section back to the standard spelling. This is just silly. See Tire#Etymology. If even the British Times considers "tyre" non-standard, so should we. Anyone advocating an alternate spelling should also start using the word womyn to refer to the female gender. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am glad to see you do this. The anti-Americanism that has bubbled below the surface, though sometimes above, through these discussions and this article have gotten tiresome. I have no objection to including British or American words or spellings in (parentheses) following whichever original word or spelling is used — e.g., Motorcycle (Motorbike) or petrol (gasoline) — but it seems silly to me to purge the entire article of all American spellings and words just to force British usage.

The Australian English article comments, There is a widely held belief in Australia that "American spellings" are a modern intrusion, but the debate over spelling is much older and has little to do with the influence of North American English. ... Many Australian newspapers once excised the "u", for words like "color" but do not anymore, and the Australian Labor Party retains the "-or" ending it officially adopted in 1912. Because of a backlash to the perceived "Americanisation" of Australian English, there is now a trend to reinsert the "u" in words such as harbour.

Absolute BS! The article refers to Victor Harbor, a town in SA. All other place names in Australia use Harbour probably due to the use of Admiralty charts for navigation. M-72 11:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the antipathy some nationals of other English-speaking countries feel toward the influence of American English. We see it right here on this talk page. Why do we need to let this antipathy infect this article and this talk page? -- Jeff Dean, 5 February 2007, 1420 MST

The WP:MOS has always been clear, and according to the first major edit this article should remain consistent with South African English (as stated above somewhere). This has nothing to do with British spellings.--Clawed 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! See what I mean?! South Africa forever! Down with Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the United States. Up with South Africa!

I have a proposal that might make everyone happy. How about this: we will rename the current motorcycle article "Motorcycle (South African English)." I offer to translate it into a parallel article, "Motorcycle (American English)." Because we have been told that South African spelling "has nothing to do with British spellings," perhaps someone from England could volunteer to create another parallel article, "Motorcycle (British English)." If this leaves Canadians, Aussies, New Zealanders, etc., unhappy, someone from those countries could volunteer to create their parallel articles. This could be a slam dunk where everyone wins! What do you all think? -- Jeff Dean, 5 February 2007, 1640 hours, Mountain Standard Time

To borrow a term, Bollocks. It doesn't matter what the first edit was. WP:MOS is concerned with keeping a consistent style in the article, not which edit was first. This article is not your personal battleground over which version of English is proper. Seriously, the official language of South Africa is Afrikaans! —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Malber please stick to facts rather than lying to support his viewpoint? Afrikaans is indeed one of the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa, as is English. I note that the USA like Australia has NO official language!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bollocks to yourself. From: Tire#Etymology

Fowler also notes that the altered spelling tyre originally met with resistance from conservative 
British institutions such as The Times newspaper.

There is nothing about the spelling tyre being non-standard. The Times actually use the spelling of tyre not tire [1][2].

Secondly if you read WP:MOS#Usage_and_spelling it states

Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout.
- This article has always had a mix of spellings
If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
- No there is no strong tie to any dialect
Try to find words that are common to all.
- Tire is not common to all
Stay with established spelling
- The article has always had a mix of spellings
Follow the dialect of the first contributor.
- If the article is made consistent then we should be consistent with South African English

Why do you have to make something as trivial as this so complicated.--Clawed 03:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to not have to do this, but your wikilawyering is flawed. Take a look at the Tire article. Which spelling does it use in the title? Which spelling is a redirect?

Now to your MOS points:

Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout.
- This means don't use a mix of systems. One system should be chosen for the entire article. However, where British bikes are discussed I feel it would be appropriate to use the term "motorbike." More on this later.
If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
- Motorcycles are manufactured and ridden worldwide. However during the infancy of the motorcycle, the country with the biggest development and the most manufacturers during the 20th century was the United States. This would lend a slight argument for the article to favor American English. The article does make mention of the British motorcycle industry, and in this area I do think we should use the term "motorbike." But no more deviation than that. There is no way you can make an argument on this point that the article should favor "South African English."
Try to find words that are common to all.
- Tire is the common spelling. Just about any dictionary you find will define "tyre" as an alternate spelling. Even the Wikipedia entry uses "tire." No one, not even a South African, is going to misunderstand you if you use the spelling "tire."
Stay with established spelling.
- See point one. This means, don't edit war over spelling. And don't go reverting to a different spelling system just because you prefer it. This article has used American English for a very long time. You haven't given a compelling reason why we should prefer the dialect of a country that doesn't even recognize it as their national language.

As posted previously,

Can Malber please stick to facts rather than lying to support his viewpoint? Afrikaans is indeed one of the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa, as is English. I note that the USA like Australia has NO official language!

Does this mean that US spelling should be deleted because it is not an offical language? M-72 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the dialect of the first contributor.
- You fail to take into account the sub-bullet point, If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. Now, I feel I've already made my point for a spelling style preference on the previous points, but let's look at the first entry of this article from September 28, 2001 because this really clinches it.[3] It uses spellings like "motorized" and "characterized" and doesn't even mention the term "motorbike." It does use the spelling "aluminium," but let's not split hairs too far; even the Wikipedia entry on the elemnt uses the -ium spelling.

Z rather than S is a spelling point gravely in dispute. The spelling seems to be based more on pronunciation. M-72 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please, if you can give a complling reason why we should revert the entire article to British or South African English spelling, please provide it. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gave the reason. English is an official language of the Republic of South Africa, but it is not an official language of the United States of America. As you stated "why we should prefer the dialect of a country that doesn't even recognize it as their national language". Argue your way out of that! M-72 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most English speakers use the British dialect spelling. That includes the Indian sub-continent and the Former Soviet Union. M-72 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove my photos

Gregarious Lonewolf commented, "Jeff, I can understand why you're upset, however, just blanking the links to the images you submitted is not the way to approach the issue. Had you discussed your desire to remove those images in the talk page before starting your revert war, I might have been more sympathetic."

Accordingly, I state here that I wish to remove all the images in this article for which I was the images' originator. I wish to remove my images because the article itself is a mess, needs complete reworking, and does not currently merit the inclusion of my images. Moreover, I am tired of the unnecessary and off-topic anti-Americanism expressed on this talk page and would like my images removed until it is completely elminated from the article and the discussions. I have never been anti-British or anti-Australian or anti-South African, and see no reason why anti-Americanism should be tolerated.

I wish also to thank Malber for the sensitive and rational comment he left for me on my personal talk page. -- Jeff Dean, 5 February 2007, 1420 MST. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The images you uploaded were placed under the Creative Commons license viewable here. Of particular interest is section 3 which states:

3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: ...

There are provisions for revocation in section 7, but those only apply to a breach of terms, such as removing attribution from the work. Since the Wikimedia foundation is unlikely to break these terms, you have no option to revoke the license. Wikipedia has a perpetual license to use these images, so by deleting them from the article, you are removing useful licensed content from Wikipedia. Sorry I know it's not what you want to hear, but that's what you agreed to. —Dgies^t c 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Drive

In the section to which I am obviously referring, it is stated that belts are *frequently* used as a final drive. This is incorrect. They are used *only* on Harley-Davidson cycles and HD-derived choppers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Wishbone (talk • contribs) 00:13, February 6, 2007

Not so. The BMW F650 has used one since at least 2003, and the 2006 F800 has one, too. The Kawasaki Vulcan 900 & 2000 also use a belt, as does the Suzuki Boulevard S40. Plus, there are belt conversion kits available for many makes and models. --Evb-wiki 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you go to markets other than the US, you'll find that Kawasaki had a 450 belt drive in the 1980's and Honda a 250 (plus probably a lot more that I've never seen). Add to that the fact that CVT scooters use belt final drives and you'll find that H-D belt drives are a very small percentage of the belt FD market. M-72 06:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the beat goes on. Which English is it?

The dispute that seems never to end. Which variety of English is this article supposed to be in? Which should it be:

British English?
American English?
Australian English?
South African English?
Canadian English?
Pidgin English?
Universal English?

Can there ever be a consensus?

Oops. Forgot to sign this earlier. Jeff dean 20:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. You can come back under your username. Your 8hr block for 3rr should be over by now. Voting is evil, but a serious and healthy consensus call on what language style we should use may be a good way to resolve this. Perhaps even including a request for comment on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling page. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly, there appears to be no opinion re: which English is correct! Jeff dean 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, of course, but some reasons might be:

1. We are stunned by the nasty turn the discussion took and don't want to get dragged into it.

2. We really don't care. We are more interested in motorcycles themselves.

3. We have been momentarily distracted by (and actually leaning new things from) the new tiff about ABS.

4. We are horrified to see the virus spread to the bicycle and related articles.

5. We hope that if we don't say anything (this post notwithstanding) it will all just go away.

Take your pick. -AndrewDressel 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***RANT*** Quiete frankly i don't give a flying f*** what version of enlgish this page is in. FFS sake people, get on with the article, there is pleanty to be done. arguing over what is and isn't a mtorocylce and what subtle variation of english is getting us no where (i'll shut up now and go back to lurking) ***/RANT***

Pickle 14:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went out on Monday and came back to all this ranting and rancour even though I had previously suggested a calmer disposition so I have been sitting this out until now. I don't know what got into Jeff dean but he is too old, and hopefully mature, for such childlike tantrums. (Sorry Jeff but you do some great work). For those of us who speak and write British English, we can always understand what American English writers are saying, though it is unfortunately not always the other way around. As Pickle says it does not really matter so long as we write some really good articles. Wikipedia guidance is that we continue to use the form of English the article was started with unless the topic subject is specifically associated with either version, e.g. AJS should use British English and Buell should be in American English.

So let's just make this article much better. As the lead article for the Project I wanted advise from impartial editors and that was the reason I put it up for peer review recently but was disappointed so few suggestions, of any kind, were made. If we can bring it up to Featured Article or even Good article status it would be great and I am sure that if there is still some language problems then there will be some advise at that time. Collaboration towards this goal would be appreciated instead of all the anger that we have seem in the last few days. ww2censor 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph! It is true that I am very old, of course, but I try not to let that colour my viewpoint. After all, if I weren't childlike I wouldn't be playing with motorbikes ... err ... motorcycles. Jeff dean 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? He's just a lad at heart. :-) --Evb-wiki 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am confused again. Is it "childlike" or "ladlike"? Discussion, please. Jeff dean 17:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has ABS brakes?

ABS brakes are available on motorcycles down to the 49cc Geely Strada RX81, which has front only ABS brakes. ABS brakes are also available on the 250cc Honda Reflex motorcycle or motor scooter. There may be more ABS scooters, but I figured getting down to 49cc was enough. The smallest true motorcycle I know of with ABS brakes is the BMW F650. So ... either you can say that ANY size "motorcycle" can be obained with ABS brakes, or you can make a nonredundant distinction between true motorcycles and motor scooters. Jeff dean 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of traditional styled motorcycles that have ABS brakes (see [4]) but they are uncommon on any small motorcycle.--Clawed 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABS is starting to become a "standard" feature on sport-tourers. The BMW K1200LT has it (several more do also) as does the Yamaha FJR1300, Honda Goldwing, ST1300, and VFR, the Triumph ST, the Ducati ST, Aprilia Futura... I'm sure I've missed a bunch. Liberal Classic 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

I've archived about half of this talk page. I tried to select discussions older than 2 months. Basically, everything before "Electric motorcycles or not?" has been archived. Some of the topics did have recent replies, but they were replies to comments made more than two months ago. If you feel that a discussion is still active, please retrieve it from the archive page and re-insert it on this page. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China

I have removed the following unsourced statement:

"However, in the Peoples Republic of China, motorcycle use is is being severely restricted by bans and refusals of re-registration."

This unsourced statement seems to be untrue. See "China's Motorcycle Market to Grow Steadily," People's Daily - Business (August 10, 2001) & China Scooter & Motorcycle. --Evb-wiki 15:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong for me to delete the first addition of this as I found the claim so outrageous. The news article Evb-wiki references above is from 2001 and is outdated. From the 1st of January 2007 the Guangzhou municipal government banned motorcycles in urban areas of Guangzhou and paid some money to previous owners and tried to find new jobs to old motorcycle taxi riders. This is not worth a mention in the lead of the article but could be mentioned later on especially if this could spread to other Chinese cities.[5][6]--Clawed 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic reading for the un-informed [7] [8] [9] Bans and restrictions are widespread and spreading fast. M-72 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I noticed that, although the articles in the second set cited suggest wide spread restrictions, Guangzhou is the only city specifically cited as having a ban. Interesting. Talk about making policy based on outrageously false information. Anyway, it would help if you provide sources at the time you add info to the article. Maybe, we should start a section on governmental bias against and baseless restrictions on motorcycles. --Evb-wiki 02:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also failed to notice this in the first article - "Motorcycles may not be operated within Beijing's Third Ring Road, a 30-mile highway that encircles the city, so Hoelter said a likely dealer location would be outside the city core." Not surprising when people choose only to see what they agree with. But as to citations, I've added a number of "citations needed" to the motorcycle article. I'll add more in the next few days. Can't let wikipaedia degenerate into an unsupported state can we? M-72 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There M-72 goes again! Waratah-9 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, unknown user Waratah-9. Is your middle name hypocrisy? To be expected of most editors of this category who demand citations but never provide them. Such is life! M-72 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity photos

Some of the photos in this article have no direct relevance to the adjacent text and are what I would call "vanity" photos. Examples here were inserted in this article.

The other photos, a number of them are mine, have relevance to the adjacent text. I selected and placed my photos to illustrate textual points.

Should we get rid of vanity photos that are not relevant to adjacent text?
Jeff dean 19:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos that illustrate the text are important. But general photos about a subject as dynamic as the motorcycle are also important for a well documented article. Images help break up the text and aid in readability, so they don't necessarily have to be about the adjacent text, though it helps. I might suggest including in the types of motorcycle a few photos illustrating different types. In the tires section there should be some free images of different types of motorcycle tires (important I think because motorcycle tire design and use can be significantly different than other vehicles). But for the other images that might not fit into a particular section a gallery might be a good idea. Anyone interested in looking up motorcycles in an encyclopedia would probably want to see a motorcycle. Having a variety is a good idea. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shift shock

"CVTs are ideally suited to 2-wheeled vehicles because of the lack of shift shock."

Is there a better way to describe this? Neither the Transmission (mechanics) nor the Continuously variable transmission articles mention "shift shock". Is there a source to cite? -AndrewDressel 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first saw it in an article on the Husqvarna 4 speed auto in the early '80's. I believe that it is an American expression for poorly performing Automatic transmissions. Check with Guzzi Convert owners or Honda Automatic owners for a better expression. It's out there, but I can't remember it. Sorry. M-72 06:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:4-Stroke-Engine.gif

Would anyone object to the removal of this image? It's not really specific to motorcycles as some bikes have two stroke engines. If anyone wants to learn about those types of engines and see the animation they can go to 4 stroke engine. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a cool GIF, but I have no objection to its removal. Jeff dean 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I like the gif. It helps sets the article apart from 80% of the other articles. I also agree that "[i]t's not really specific to motorcycles" and "[i]f anyone wants to learn about those types of engines and see the animation they can go to 4 stroke engine," which has a link in the text. I'd hate to see it go, but I have no compelling reason to keep it. --Evb-wiki 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too but would prefer to keep rather than just drop it because it is not motorcycle specific. ww2censor 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that it is a cool animation, indeed it's a featured picture, another reason for removing it which I didn't state earlier is that because it is a gif, it increases the page size by the amount of data the end user needs to download. This can slow the page load for certain users with less bandwidth. It also can cause performance issues for users with slower machines. Because it causes these problems and the other content issues, I think it should be removed. BTW, it's already included in the Motorcycle engine article. —M (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I removed the gif. However I think some free close up images of different types of motorcycle engines would be good for this section. We have a boxer engine thanks to Jeff. How about an image of a single cylinder, a V-twin, an inline, etc? I've contributed Image:Rightsideengine.JPG but it's not a very good representation as it's too close (and a bit embarassing, I've got some work to do once the weather warms up!)—M (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky blue and White Vandalism

The subject is Motorcycle, yet anyone reading the page could be easily confused into thinking it was BMW Motorcycles. For the uninitiated out there, BMW has never, apart from the telescopic fork (and even that is under dispute) invented anything in regards to motorcycles. They are a MINOR manufacturer. Please remember that. M-72 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is really an overstatement of the article. Maybe M-72 just does not like BMWs but it is certainly not an unbalanced article in favour of BMW. The only sub-section where anything BMW related is mentioned twice is the subcultures section where the {{BMW MAO]] is written about. Maybe there are some other organisations that could be added to balance that section but IMHO there is no BMW bias here. ww2censor 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There M-72 goes again! Let's face it. M-72 doesn't like BMW motorcycles, the U. S., or U. S. English (buying into the general Australian antipathy to "Americanzation") and loves Russia and China. Yet he claims others are biased! He chops whatever he doesn't like from this article, most especially anything BMW. He is repeatedly condescending and arrogant in his tone. It really is time for an administrator to take action against M-72. Waratah-9 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 35 years I have owned approx. 50 motorcycles (excluding bikes bought for spares or racing), from 19 manufacturers made in 9 countries. Ten have been BMWs. Of the several motorcycles I still own, three are BMWs. Of the two that I have currently registered, one is a BMW. Obvious proof that I hate BMWs! BMW does not stand for "Best Motorcycle in the World". And while I will frequently refer to them as "Bavarian Money-Wasters". they are not necessarily that, though they can be. No motorcycle is perfect. If I was rich enough, I'd have a stable of 10-15 bikes capable of doing anything. I'm not! I'll probably settle on three or four that cover most things - until they take my license from me.

Am I anti-American (U.S.A)? Not really, though I despise their Government's Terrorist Wars on Drugs and Terror and the export of U.S "culture". I spent some time living in the U.S. Didn't like it or the attitudes - no! But by the same token, there's a lot of things I don't like in Australia. I actively try and change them. Am I pro Russia and China - yes! Do I like everything I see there -no! Do I comment on that and write e-mails to their officials criticising what i don't like - yes. Bryce Courtney got it right in "The Power of One"! M-72 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since M-72 makes substantive content contributions, his rants don't bother me. Besides, he's trying to make a point here about the article (correct or incorrect, depending on any reader's opinion or bias). It isn't as if his comments were solely about some other editor. -AndrewDressel 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I realise that, but even if M-72's rant might be directed a particular editor, his claim that the article is biased in favour of BMW is not fair and not true; that's all I was saying. However, some of his edits here look particularly POV and if POV-pushing continues at a level that cannot be dealt with by interested editors, maybe we would need some administration assistance, but it has not come to that and I am optimistic a balance can be maintained. ww2censor 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I object to any comment, it is this. Offensive, nasty, obnoxious I may be - but "POV-pushing" - please! Re-read POV and point out the offending edits and we can discuss them. ( Note I did not say argue them - (I am trying to change from teletype mode). M-72 03:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are being too lenient with M-72. He or she has a long record of caustic and antagonistic postings, most or all of which have his or her distinct anti-American and anti-BMW POV. I know of no other contributor who behaves the way he or she does in posting on motorcycle related Wikipedia sites. It is past due that M-72 be seriously sanctioned. Waratah-9 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. The article should be as manufacturer agnostic as possible and specific manufacturers should only be mentioned for something unique and compelling. e.g. BMW introducing ABS qualifies as both, but following it with a list of manufacturers who also offer ABS adds little value. BMW introducing electric windscreens may be unique but is hardly compelling IMHO. --Cheesy Mike 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must agree with Cheesy Mike, but with all due respect Waratah-9, for a new editor with a total of 7 edits, all of which are on talk pages, while you may well be annoyed at M-72 I think there are enough active main-space editors here to deal with M-72 POV edits. Unless it gets out of hand, as mentioned previously, I think we are able to keep some balance in the motorcycle articles. Waratah-9 you can step right in and revert any POV edits you see being made around here though in some case discussion on the talk page may be appropriate. ww2censor 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of M-72's edits don't bother me much (in fact, many are very good), but I could definitely live without his attitude and personal attacks. --Evb-wiki 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ww2censor, that's what I wanted to say. -AndrewDressel 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of User:M-72's edits were righteous, but the one I find challengable is the removal of the Victory from the discussion of motorcycle manufacturers catering to the US market. This statement in the edit summary was that Victory wasn't a major player in the world market which would be irrelevant if you were just talking about the US market. However, the line removed had no citation, and I feel that the History section should be re-written to express a more worldwide view. It gives brief mention of the motorcycle's infancy in Germany, runs right into post WWII Harley-Davidson, and neglects everything from there to the present.

I also agree with User:M-72 that there is a heavy use of BMW motorcycles in the images. This isn't anyone's fault and it's not necessarily a problem, and we have the generous contributions of Jeff Dean to thank, but we should get more motorcycle images to represent other makes. Time for people to step up, take out their digital cameras, and take some pictures of their bikes.

User:M-72 does need to examine his tone, lose the paranoia, and review WP:AGF. —M (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already contributed my vanity photo. :-)~ --Evb-wiki 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that fully half the images (7 of 14) are BMW related, until someone else places, or replaces, them with some other non-BMW photos, that visual imbalance will remain. ww2censor 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated several BMW photos. I believe only two (2) may now remain, and I believe there is only one BMW reference in any of the captions in this article. I may be able to find a non-BMW replacement for the ABS sensor photo.Jeff dean 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the BMW opposed-twin photo with a Ural engine photo. The sole remaining BMW photo is the ABS sensor ring photo, and BMW is not mentioned in the caption. There is no longer any mention of BMW in any caption. I believe that this completes the cleansing the article of all BMW "vandalilsm." Jeff dean 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I am sorry to see you have succumed to the bully. I do not believe eliminating the BMW images has improved this article at all. The prior photos (as of 03/03/07) were all better than the replacements. It's a shame. --Evb-wiki 01:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many BMW images because I took them, because there was a dearth of photos when I first saw this article and I decided to supply some, and because I take good photos. You will also see my non-BMW photos in other motorcycle related articles, so I am not exclusively BMW even though I freely admit that I believe that BMW makes the finest and most innovative motorcycles on the planet and has done so since 1923. The fact that I have supplied so many non-BMW photos is evidence of the fact the I find all motorcycles interesting. As noted above, I attempted to delete all the BMW photos in this article some time ago and was roundly hooted down. If anyone wishes to supply equivalently instructive photos of motorcycle other than BMWs in place of mine, please be my guest. If you would like to delete most or all of the BMW images in this article in order to cleanse it, please do so. Jeff dean 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMW innovation?? Lets see - 1923, copied across the frame engine from ABC, trailing link leaf spring forks from Indian, shaft drive from FN, pressed steel frame from - take your pick - no innovation there. Telescopic forks - maybe. Rear suspension - no been in use since at least the 19 teens. OHV - no. Earles fork - no. Laid-down four aka K series - no, had to wait for the Ariel patent to expire. Parallelogram suspension - Arturo Magni and MV Augusta - probably had to wait for patents to expire. Telelever suspension - Motodd-Saxon. Duolever suspension - Hossack - needed to wait for patents to expire. F800 linkage crankshaft - Triumph Project Diana/Phoenix - had to wait for patents to expire. Yes, a really innovative company. 203.206.61.30 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There M-72, a.k.a. 203.206.61.30, goes again! Waratah-9 15:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to stay away from this, but I failed to do so. Off the top of my head — first hydraulic front forks (late 1930s), first manufacturer with a production full fairing (1977), first electrically adjustable windshield, first "adventure touring" motorcycle (R80G/S, 1980), and that little item of the first use of ABS on a motorcycle (1981). Also, first shaft-drive longitudinal opposed twin with unit construction (1923). Yes, other manufacturers, as M-72 noted, came up with this or that innovation, but it was BMW who put them all together in one complete package. I would call that BMW's most significant innovation. Jeff dean 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" first manufacturer with a production full fairing (1977)" forget about the Vincent "Black Prince" 1955? There are others as well. "first "adventure touring" motorcycle (R80G/S, 1980)" OK, you can ignore the Honda CL series. Myopia is common amongst the "Blue and White" crowd. "Also, first shaft-drive longitudinal opposed twin with unit construction (1923)" Hmm! BMW added a shaft drive to the ABC and that is "innovation"! "first electrically adjustable windshield", WOW, adding electrics to what has gone before!. "and that little item of the first use of ABS on a motorcycle (1981)" Wrong! Maybe first production use, but TRL had been playing with ABS for a damn sight longer - just no British companies left to implement it. BMW copied again. A bit of research shows that BMW is a magnificent copier - nothing wrong with that - but don't call it innovation. M-72 11:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some can play a few notes on a piano. Others can put the notes together and create a concerto. Jeff dean 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear the concerto Jeff, just learn to read the music first. M-72 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, no fault lies with you. I believe that, when Malber said "we have the generous contributions of Jeff Dean to thank," he was being sincere. I agree. We certainly do. Thank you for your contributions. --Evb-wiki 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I do value Jeff's contributions. They are fine examples of the subject. The fact that there are so many BMW pictures is simply because he's an aficianado and you work first with what you're familiar with. It could lead to an imbalanced impression of the article, but there is no reason to delete any images from the article just to acheive a balance. In fact I think there should be more relevant photos. —M (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on that - more photos please folks. This started out as a discussion on a supposed BMW bias in the text that does not exist and now seems to be becoming a criticism of the use of Jeff's BMW photos. I am sure that is not what is meant. We all know Jeff has many very good photos and many of them, though not all, are BMW photos. We are thankful for them all. Our objective is to create balanced articles and a dominance of BMW photos does not quite achieve that from a visual standpoint. However, until someone else steps up to the plate with a greater variety of photos, or something better become available, Jeff's photos are great to have. BTW, I did not know Jeff has so many other non-BMW photos too. Thanks. ww2censor 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all. But be careful — M-72 may rise up from "down under" and bite you! :) Jeff dean 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in the World - WWI

The "Motorcycle Museum" (?) states that "[p]rior to World War One, Indian was the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world, producing over 20,000 bikes per year." So That's an Indian!

According to PBS's History Detectives: "By 1920, . . . [Harley-Davidson] had grown into the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world." Episode 9, 2006: Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, Flemington, New Jersey (2006 Oregon Public Broadcasting).

Of course Harley itself claims: "By 1920, Harley-Davidson was the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the world. Their motorcycles were sold by dealers in 67 countries. Production was 28,189 machines." HARLEY DAVIDSON at History - World War I.

--Evb-wiki 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABS on bikes smaller than 650cc

To answer Jeff Dean's question posed when reverting my edit, ABS is available on a number of bikes below 650cc. Examples from the bikes on offer in the UK at the time of writing include the Yamaha Fazer FZ6 S2[10], the Honda CBF600 and the Honda CBF500[11]. I have therefore reworded the article accordingly. --Cheesy Mike 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cheesy. Are you aware of the fact that Wisconsin, U.S., is "America's Dairyland," and its residents are known far and wide as "Cheeseheads"? Jeff dean 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. As a frequent traveller to the US I am also aware that a large number of Americans don't realise that you can buy Cheddar Cheese that isn't made in Wisconsin and that it is named after a village in the UK. --Cheesy Mike 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good cheese, also made in Wisconsin — "The state of Wisconsin produces the most Cheddar in the United States". But the world's stinkiest cheese, Limburger cheese, is only made in Belgium, Germany, and — Wisconsin :) Jeff dean 17:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]