- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Regarding the relevance of a sepreate sub-section of text about a particular book that has been inserted into a general article page about a particular motorcycle. The talk page discussion has reached an impasse regarding the relevance/non-relevance of this book material to the motorbike and also, therefore, the relevance/non-relevance of sources for such.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
The original deletion of the book material was reinserted by a user who has 35 out of the article's 50 edits, so there may be an issue of 'ownership' here regarding 'outsider' edits.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes (notices given by DRN clerk)
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=BMW R1100GS}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion on the talk page of the article.
- How do you think we can help?
Can we get some form of consensus on what consitutes relevance and trivia? For example, the added text regarding the book may be relevant to an article about the book, but non-relevant to the article about the bike.
Rivercard (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Wikipedia:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit. The essay is only an essay and is not binding in any way; the MoS guideline is, at its heart, about trivia sections not about the inclusion or exclusion of individual items which are contended to be trivia and, indeed, the third bullet point of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not expressly says: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."
No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so. In light of that fact, then the information must be included or excluded by consensus. The information was originally introduced into the article in this edit in 2009 and has remained there until the current controversy arose with the information being, first, broken into a separate section in this edit, then removed in this edit. It has been restored by two editors since that time. The consensus policy says: "Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article."
There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a request for comments would be the best way to do so. My personal feeling is that while the material is unquestionably marginal that it could be of importance to some readers and, indeed, supports the notability of the subject of the article, so my support would be for continued inclusion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: I have reopened this discussion (originally closed on March 23) pursuant to the request made at User_talk:TransporterMan#BMW_R1100GS_noticeboard. The requesting party, Rivercard, must notify the other parties to the discussion that the discussion has been reopened before posting here. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Supplement: The discussion is being opened to at least consider the effect of WP:WPACT on the discussion. It should be noted that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorcycles#Guidelines expressly makes WP:WPACT also applicable to motorcycles, not just automobiles. It is to be noted that WP:WPACT is not a policy or guideline, but is instead part of "an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies." — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- First, to TransporterMan, thank you very much for reopening this discussion to give me the opportunity to reply with newly found code information.
- More importantly, it is to provide an answer to two assertions on the noticeboard:
- (1) 'I've looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Wikipedia:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit.'
- (2) 'No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so.'
- Point (2) was absolutely correct at the time on the 'other policy/guideline' issue, and I have to shoulder some blame here for not searching out the most apposite Wiki code. Apologies for that. But that is why I think it is especially important that we can now raise the following communal consensus:
- "Trivia and popular culture sections
- Wikipedia generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show — such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show."
- In principle, I’ve already been arguing exactly the highlighted points above - (especially re: the importance of the motorbike to Neil Peart not being the same as the importance of Neil Peart to the motorbike's entry) - and I’ve been putting them on the entry’s (talk) page (I won’t copy/paste them all here). But this is the first time I’ve been able to present an exact Wikipedia consensus code that explicitly expresses the same.
- Obviously this miscellany/relevence problem with vehicles has arisen before hence why the hard work of consensus-seeking in WP:WPACT has already been done on the subject by many other Wikipedians. (And, to be fair to Dennis Bratland (talk), perhaps he was also unaware of the existing consensus of WP:WPACT.)
- I do think it is an extremely important point in principle that there is no elitism on Wikipedia and that communal consensus clarifications are seen to be enacted equally, regardless of the insistence otherwise of editors that may have some historical ‘investment’ in an entry. That’s all I ask. Thanks.
- Regards. Rivercard (talk)
- Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions is neither a policy nor a guideline (see WP:PG). WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such with no well-sourced cultural impact to go with it (example). As a minimum standard, if the appearance affects the car's design, sales, etc. then you can positively say the appearance belongs in the article about the car, even if the cultural significance has no reliable sources to back it up. But that doesn't mean you then have license to delete all material that doesn't meet WP:WPACT. The more general Wikipedia policies and guidelines have precedence, and those don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources. Examples: A, B, C...
It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point. The same policy underscores that once again with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. AKA WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTPLOT. With regard to fiction plots, it says "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." A good article about a book is not merely a detailed recitation of the contents of the book -- a mere plot summary. On the contrary, that is kept to a minimum, and instead the critical reaction and cultural impact is the primary purpose of the encyclopedia article. It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said. So a Wikipedia article about the BMW R1100GS motorcycle should not be mere a list of statistics and technical facts. Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data. Instead, the main point of an encyclopedia article about the BMW R1100GS should be the critical reception and the cultural impact. Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not has precedence and tell us to do almost the opposite of WP:WPACT in this case. Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available. If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy. It might be a good idea to transclude this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling to see if anyone there wishes to defend WP:WPACT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 1
-
Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See [1][2][3][4]'. Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely: source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’
source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’.
source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name.
source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
- So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page.
YOUR POINTS:
(1)'WP:WPACT is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such.'
No, it is not just ‘for appearances in movies’ - please note: PACT states ‘It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner, or some movie or TV’ - so the movie appearance point is secondary to the primary point of relationship to owner. You are skipping the primary point (which applies here) and leapfrogging over it to a secondary point (which doesn't apply).
(2) 'Don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources.Examples: A, B, C...'
As has been demonstrated in first paragraph - (re: [1],[2],[3],[4]) - it is NOT well sourced and the so-called ‘cultural significance‘ is highly questionable. ‘Cultural significance’ is a phrase that should be used sparingly and only where it applies (i.e. the drummer in a non-culturally significant rock band using a motorbike is nowhere near a definition of cultural significance - So, your example, source A, is of the genuinely significant figure of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) dying on a certain motorbike. But this only proves the case for deletion of the Peart book and disproves the case for inclusion - because: TE Lawrence, culturally significant? - Yes. Neil Peart? - No).
(3) Your example, source C, is the most damning - it first seems to prove that the book ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ should be on the entry page for the Honda CB77... but really it shouldn't. And you agree, because, if we look in the revision history, we can see that you yourself deleted mention of the book on the bike page because ‘(Make and model motorcycle isn't mentioned in the novel.)’ - Revision as of 02:35, 6 April 2011 (edit) - but now you seek to use it as proof of the opposite? This doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense when the next day, without explanation, you reinserted the ’Zen’ piece with a subject heading and some references. But references are not adequate support for material that should not be there in the first place - then it just becomes referenced trivia rather than unreferenced trivia. So the reason you first deleted it still stands. Which is exactly the point. And this is the same point that applies to the Peart book section on the R100GS entry.
Again, your ‘evidence’ here unintentionally proves the case for deletion of Peart’s book and not for its continued inclusion. And also further proves the relevance of WP:WPACT
(4) 'It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Wikipedia article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point.'
I'm afraid that is cherry-picking policy points; the policy article you quote also says ‘In any encyclopaedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful’ and ‘there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done’. And removing non-culturally significant information does not reduce the R1100GS page to a handbook. You seem to be using criteria for what shouldn’t be there as justification for what should. One does not follow from the other; included information has to stand independently.
(5) 'It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Wikipedia is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.'
Again, this speaks to cultural significance - which your previous sources have failed to establish - and the policy quote regarding books and songs does not indiscriminately apply to all books and songs - it would only be relevant to the ones where a good case could be shown. That is the whole point.
(6) 'Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopaedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data.
Well, ‘not overdoing’ statistics is a point in and of itself : it is not a point that justifies other non-significant inclusions. The two are not linked.
(7) 'Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle.'
Once again, cultural effect not proven; (and such effect the book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that).
(8) 'Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.'
Here you raise for a second time the examples of your 1,2,3,4 and A,B,C 'sources' that have really been proven very weak (or non-existent) and even contradictive to your own case. Those examples still more heavily make the case for non-inclusion of the Peart book material.
(9) 'If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy.'
This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the deletion (seriously?) of a useful and hard-earned Wikipedia consensus just because it does not support your own personal view says something, I think, about even the proposer's own lack of confidence in the evidence provided (and especially when you have cited WP;PACT yourself.)
I would humbly suggest that the proposal to keep the Peart book section is a classic form of ‘overvaluation’ and 'over defense' of the material. Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Wikipedia - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?)
Hope this hasn't been too long (but, well, what else have we got to do...) Regards - Rivercard (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've placed a no personal attacks warning on your talk page. This is getting far out of hand and needs to stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have not yet been involved in this discussion but I have just looked at the article and section in question, the WP guidelines on relevance and WP:WPACT. From the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article, the Ghost Rider section, as now written, does not appear to have a strong relevance to the article. But I think the connection could become more apparent by revising the language of that section. What throws the reader off is that the focus of the section as written is Neil Pearl, not the motorcycle. I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process. A brief but prominent mention of these might bring the section back onto the topic of this article. If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.Coaster92 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re: comment 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- From my sourced and researched rebuttal of the argument against deletion there is perhaps one word ('hubristic'), and there is, at the end, a small joke about the tightness of riding suits(!), which was an obvious attempt to lighten any ranquor that may have developed during this discussion (levity is allowed; we are humans, not bots!). So I think that hardly constitutes the description above of 'getting far out of hand'.
- (Note: Unless the user Dennis Bratland is referring to the use of the word 'aggressive' in the lighthearted aside about riding suits; in which case I'd like to refer Dennis back to his own quote on the BMW R1100GS [Talk] page: "I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia," - Dennis Bratland'. (Also important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith, Wikipedia policy clearly states that this 'does not prohibit discussion and criticism.' And criticism is not the same as uncivility.)
- However, the most important thing here is this:
- If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see [1], [2], [3], [4] and A, B, C mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination not to stand up and to not prove the case for inclusion. This is the only evidence that matters.
- Crucially, when new editors are introduced to this discussion (the Peart material has already been described as 'unquestionably marginal') and thereby also introduce what Coaster92 above accurately calls 'the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article', it can be objectively seen that the separate section on Peart would be much more suited to an article on Peart himself and not in this BMW R1100GS article.
- Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - 'and such effect the [Peart] book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that'
- I contend there is no strong case for relevance to the article and we have yet to see any evidence presented that meaningfully rebuts that. There also appears to be increasing consensus for deletion until relevant sources prove otherwise ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument" - WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS)
- Rivercard (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Addendum:
- Also see - Talk for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Wikipedia criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is no mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is no image of the drummer and the bike.)
- Rivercard (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 2
 Doing... With regard to Coaster92's suggestion (and what I said back on March 15) to expand the section to include specifics from the book as to why it mattered that Peart rode a BMW R1100GS and not just any motorcycle, I'm gathering citations from the book Ghost Rider, as well as from Clement Salvadori's June 2003 review in Rider magazine, and Brian Catterson's article in Cycle World, February 2003. So the problem should be fixed shortly. Any impatient editors may of course take matters in their own hands and use these sources, or other sources, to do the expansion themselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Dennis Bratland's Doing..., the below text is taken from the BMW R1100GS page and establishes that the task of trying to prove that the R1100Gs is like no other bike is an impossible one:
- "The BMW R1100GS is a dual-sport motorcycle that was manufactured from 1993 to 1999 by BMW Motorrad in Berlin, Germany.[1] The bike has a 1,085 cc (66.2 cu in) flat-twin (boxer) engine, first seen in the R1100RS which was launched the year before in 1992,[1] and was the first member of the GS family to use an air- and oil-cooled engine rather than the earlier air-cooled airhead engines which had been used on BMW motorcycles since the R32 in 1923. From 1996 to 2001, a sister model, the smaller capacity 848 cc (51.7 cu in) R850GS, was produced. In 1999, the R1100GS was superseded by the R1150GS."
So it is clear that there is nothing particular about the R1100GS over other bikes. For example - the R11000RS was produced the year before the GS and is very similar, they even share an engine. Also, the R1100GS was then replaced by the almost identical R1150GS and the R1150GS Adventure - if you look at the tech specs it will confirm this. (The R1150GS was produced in 1999 and Peart made his trip in 2002. See here for dual-sport range: BMW dual-sport range)
As an example of the this-bike-versus-that-bike argument that this could descend into, this is the first evidence I found (and there was much more out there) on an Internet search regarding R1100GS vs R1150GS:
- "Both bikes have their advantages. If you're planning on doing lots of highway miles at high speeds, go with the overdrive equipped 1150. The 1150's two-piece exhaust system also makes it easier to swap cans. Lots of people who go off the tarmac prefer its lower gearing of the 1100, and you get good roll-on grunt in most gears in the twisties. The 1100's also a bit lighter and the headlight works better once you add a juiced up bulb. I liked my 1100 a lot-- my main beef with it was highway wind protection, but the 1150 wouldn't be any better. It was also nice not having servo-assisted brakes."
They are clearly very, very similar. And this is just ONE example of another model that could have been used by Peart; and these are just the similar bikes from the BMW range - if we introduced other manufacturers then the list would grow longer.
So however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not - which is a very, very important point.
So:
- There has been evidence presented above that the reference/sources for including the Peart/book material is weak or in some instances non-existant.
- There has been no rebuttal of this evidence.
- There have been 3 other Wikipedia editors - Coaster92, Iglooflame, 842U - independant of this discussion that have expressed their view that the Peart/book material does not belong on the motorbike page.
- There is ample evidence that very similar motorbikes exist that could have been used instead
Based on all this and the consensus that has emerged, the Peart/book section on the the entry BMW R1100GS should be deleted.
- Rivercard (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- The section on the books seems entirely forced. Parts of the discussion here and the article talk suggest that there is an intrinsic quality in a BMW R1100GS that may be construed by the reader as "healing." This anecdote might more appropriately belong in an article on placebo effect, transference or — better yet — Jesus Toast. It detracts from the overall credibility of the article.842U (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is consensus? Looks a lot like ongoing disagreement to me. I don't know why it has become urgent to delete the section just when I'm in the midst of providing the improvements that were requested in order to justify keeping it. But now all of a sudden an artificial deadline exists? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- This edit summary should be addressed as well. "this whole section seems like a square peg in a round hole -- like an anecdote forced the article. Just get rid of it." So what if it is an anecdote? An anecdote is a story, or narrative that is interesting or humorous. Wikipedia does not have an official bias against narrative, even if some editors push that point of view. In fact, as implied by WP:NOT, piles of statistics are not what Wikipedia is really about. Social and cultural meaning is just as important as a lot of cold data, and most featured articles have more narrative, not less, than mediocre articles.
Wikipedia's systemic bias shows on many car and motorcycle articles: favoring engineering facts over social meaning, as a result of the white, male, technical-oriented background of the majority of editors. Favoring physical facts over human relationships. And then we have the bias against offline sources, the FUTON bias. Looking at the world through a lens of only "full text on the net" information makes a woefully distorted picture. It's obvious, once again, that a deletionist opinion is being championed by editors who clearly have not laid eyes on the offline sources: Peart's book itself, and Clement Salvadori and Brian Catterson's reviews, to name three. If you haven't gone to a library and read the offline sources, then assume editors who have read them might just be right. As explained in the Wikipedia pillar policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:SOURCEACCESS "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- It also needs to be pointed out that 842U (talk · contribs) was recruited to edit BMW R1100GS and to come and stack the vote on this dispute, and then proceeded to do both those things just as requested. The reason the anonymous IP chose 842U was because he had previously had disagreements with me on other articles, and so whoever is behind 62.254.173.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) thought they'd be able to tip the consensus their way by canvassing. The guideline says it is inappropriate to engage in "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)."
And lo and behold, after 842U was canvassed, he graciously piled on, and Rivercard declared the issue decided in his own favor. Oh, and he helped Rivercard's edit war, as if that solves anything. Is it just me or does that stink? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Point-by-point reply below inclduing summations of previous and earlier evidenced replies.
(1) * The intitial sources chosen to support the inclusion of the Peart/book material as relevant/notable have been proved to be inadequate. No new evidence has been presented to replace to the initial sources. See (also above)
"Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See [7][8][9][10]'. Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely: source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’
source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’.
source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name.
source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
- So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page."
- Also see further evidence earlier regarding the similar and comparable weakness of the supposed A,B,C sources. (Above, under 'Your Points')
(2) * The above evidence has been presented not just once but, when it received no answer, presented again in summation further down the debate. See:
- "However, the most important thing here is this:
If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see [1], [2], [3], [4] and A, B, C mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination not to stand up and to not prove the case for inclusion. This is the only evidence that matters."
- NOTE: these are the supposed primary sources presented in support of the case for inclusion and yet, upon research, they clearly do not present any meaningful support.
(3) * The proposed Peart/book bike connection does not pass established Wikipedia Google Test criteria:
- "Addendum:
Also see - Talk for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Wikipedia criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is no mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is no image of the drummer and the bike.) Rivercard (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(4) The added and contested material falls within the purview of and does not eet the criteria of WP:WPAC.
(5) * Also, to re-highlight the point made by another editor who reviewed this case:
- "Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - 'and such effect the [Peart] book might have would come from Peart's description of how travel can help with grief, not how a particular motorbike can do that'."
(6) * Point (5) then leads on to the final stage of attempting to prove relevance/notablility by trying to find evidence that proves the R1100GS was the only bike that Peart could have used, thus making it inextricably linked with the experience. However, no evidence has been presented to prove this and, in fact, there is ample evidence that shows other motorbikes could have been used. See earlier evidence after 'Doing' section of the debate - and see excerpt below:
- "RE: Dennis Bratland's Doing..., the below text is taken from the BMW R1100GS page and establishes that the task of trying to prove that the R1100Gs is like no other bike is an impossible one:
- "The BMW R1100GS is a dual-sport motorcycle that was manufactured from 1993 to 1999 by BMW Motorrad in Berlin, Germany.[1] The bike has a 1,085 cc (66.2 cu in) flat-twin (boxer) engine, first seen in the R1100RS which was launched the year before in 1992,[1] and was the first member of the GS family to use an air- and oil-cooled engine rather than the earlier air-cooled airhead engines which had been used on BMW motorcycles since the R32 in 1923. From 1996 to 2001, a sister model, the smaller capacity 848 cc (51.7 cu in) R850GS, was produced. In 1999, the R1100GS was superseded by the R1150GS."
- So it is clear that there is nothing particular about the R1100GS over other bikes. For example - the R11000RS was produced the year before the GS and is very similar, they even share an engine. Also, the R1100GS was then replaced by the almost identical R1150GS and the R1150GS Adventure - if you look at the tech specs it will confirm this. (The R1150GS was produced in 1999 and Peart made his trip in 2002. See here for dual-sport range: BMW dual-sport range)"
- "So however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not - which is a very, very important point."
So:
- There has been evidence presented that the supposed reference/sources for including the Peart/book material are extremely weak or in some instances non-existant.
- There has been no rebuttal of the presented evidence revealing the source weakness.
- There have been other Wikipedia editors independant of this discussion that, upon reviewing the evidence, have expressed their view that the Peart/book material does not belong on the motorbike page.
- The contested material cannot pass simple Wikipedia Google Test WP:SET or WP:WPACT
- There is ample evidence that very similar motorbikes exist that could have been used instead, so invalidating claims to notability of this particular model of bike to the Peart/book.
Based on all of this and the consensus that has emerged both through strength of argument and research and contributions, the case for the deletion of the Peart/book section has been proved and the case for inclusion has been refuted in all the relevant instances - and so it seems a perfectly logical and commonsense conclusion to all this that the non-relevant material on the article page should be deleted.
- (PS. I'd also contend that a deletion of the material based on the lengthy and detailed presentations above does not warrant the description 'edit war' (as mentioned earlier); but I would also contend that a deletion that is reverted without presenting any further or new evidence for inclusion would more likely fall closer to the edit war description.)
Rivercard (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 3
- I really have to wonder how a dispute like this can ever be resolved. What are the odds that any disinterested, objective editor is going to read these appallingly long comments? Look at the other discussions on this page. Is anybody else posting 9,000 character long comments? Literally, each of Rivercard's comments is long enough to be a stand alone Wikipedia article. The effect of this filibustering is to exclude third opinions and limit the discussion to highly motivated partisans who were recruited because they have an axe to grind (*cough* 842U, Iglooflame). Maybe we need to declare a mistrial and start over from square one, but next time WP:BECONCISE. And no more canvassing.
Be that as it may, if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said, "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" -- then I'd be happy to move the Ghost Rider section to BMW GS and call this resolved. Which is not to say that the bizarrely high standard that the GS1100R must be the only bike on Earth Peart could have used is reasonable. WP:CONPOL simply doesn't work like that. I'm just trying to be accommodating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
RE: the above:
The dispute can be solved by clear evidence being presented that proves the case for deletion - and that has already been comprehensively done. It's no more complicated than that. (Though I notice you are not disputing the content of the evidence, you are just saying there is too much of it!)
You raise points only to then complain about other Wikipedians actually disproving those points. But that is contrary to a central ethos of Wikipedia.
There’s an important difference between concision (being concise) and length. So a comment could be short but still be off-topic and non-relevant; just as a comment could be longer but still be on-topic and relevant. It is the content that is important, not the length. And a perfect example of that is your own last 3 comments which may have been short but also have been off-topic and non-relevant to the case evidence.
(There has already been a failed attempt to derail this discussion with false accusations, so better to spend time on the actual case.)
The (1-6) blue-numbered list above is a clear layout of evidence proving the case for deletion - each numbered point is concise in itself. If you don't like the amount of evidence presented then I suggest that that is because it disproves your case. (In the other words, if the evidence proved the case, there would be no complaint.)
- You are of course free to refute the evidence. But the fact that the evidence has not been refuted is revealing.
You say - 'the bizarrely high standard that the GS1100R must be the only bike on Earth Peart could have used' - but this so-called 'bizarrely high standard' was one first introduced by yourself HERE when you said - 'Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS' . And that's why I took the time to find evidence that disproved the point.
BUT you now admit yourself that BMW themselves said "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" - but you only admit NOW that you already knew this, after we've been through:
- one article talk page disussion
- one noticeboard discussion
- one admin incident report !!
Why did you not admit you knew this at the beginning? Your whole case has been falsely founded on this point! And, in effect, you have just disproved your own case.
And moving the Peart/book section to a generic BMW GS article would not be a solution, because it presents exactly the same type of problem - that in the vast world of motorbike manufacturing there are other brand makes of dual-sport bike that could have been used.
May I humbly ask if that's concise enough?
Rivercard (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike today, in 1997 there were not a dozen models of adventure-touring dual sports. At that time, there were few motorcycles on the market which could both traverse mud bogs and rocky goat trails, as described in Ghost Rider, and travel for hundreds of miles well above the freeway speed limit in relative comfort. He got a lot of speeding tickets. Peart often rode 500 miles in one day. You can't push a fully-loaded, 37 bhp 1997 Kawasaki KLR650 to do that for fourteen solid months and 55,000 miles. One of the reasons BMW GS imitators have proliferated in the last decade is due to the popularity of travelogues like Ghost Rider. But how can that influence ever be proven to a Wikipedia editor who is on single-minded mission to poke holes in it? Hence the impossibility of meeting a "strict" rule written in WP:WPACT, and the need to change WP:WPACT to conform to the lower, and more realistic standards of MOS:TRIVIA and WP:CONPOL. Oh, and the fact that Peart often found himself hundreds of miles from a BMW dealership, in need of parts and repairs. Had he been on a Honda -- had Honda built the kind of bike Peart needed in 1997, as they do in 2012 -- the types of hardships Peart overcame would have been much different. There are hundreds of Honda dealers in Canada, not the dozen or so BMW shops. Forget about the South American leg of the journey.
So if now the real issue is that the presence of a section on Ghost Rider is causing grievous harm and must be deleted immediately because there's not enough citations to show why the bike matted, but that's all good once the citations are added, then how about this. Close this dispute, and give others time to gather the page numbers to fully cite the 455 page book, and the other sources, and then when the expanded Ghost Rider section is put back in the article, hold your fire and don't delete it. (And no, putting everything in bold is not the same as making it concise. It just looks like angry shouting. And, still, I'm not going to refute your worst, most illogical arguments. When an unbiased editor sees them, they are instantly refuted and I don't need to waste time on them.) Considering all the canvassing shenanigans, and the crapflooding that has driven off third opinions, I don't see any way this can be closed as resolved in your favor. There are consequences for behavior like canvassing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Again you're missing a crucial point: as has already been stated, it doesn't matter what is in the book because - "however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS, and even if a passage could be found where he says he wouldn't use any other bike, it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not."
- And you have admitted to exactly that same point a few paragraphs ago in your own quote from BMW's David Rob about the BMW range of bikes when you said: 'after all, BMW's David Rob said, "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments" '
- This all means that even if Peart genuinely thought there was no other bike he could have used, he would have actually been wrong. And information cannot be included if it is based on erroneous beliefs, however geuninely they were held at the time.
- Rivercard (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ps: For the record and FYI: bold is classed as highlighting, not shouting...)
- So then what is the problem with ignoring all the fussy little differences between BMW's many adventure bikes and putting it in BMW GS? And it wasn't just Peart's opinion. It was Catterson's and Salvadori's too. And those are only two sources. I could pile on more. I'm not here because I have a grudge against another editor *cough*. I'm here because Wikipedia policy is to follow where the sources lead us. If the experts say the bike mattered because of the lovely shade of red paint, then we give the sources their due. Have we forgotten that the premier motorcycle museum in the US put this bike (not just any bike) on display? Maybe the museum curators know something...
I don't understand the "another suitable dual-sport" nonsense. He could have done an epic trip by bicycle (that's another Peart book...) but it would have been much different. On a bike with half the horsepower, it would have been a different, much shorter, tour. There was no other dual sport motorcycle in 1997 that could have made this particular, highly notable, trip except one of BMW's GS bikes. Just because some Wikipedia editor has a pet theory that any other bike would do, published motorcycle experts Neal Peart, Brian Catterson, Clement Salvadori, and the Motorcycle Hall of Fame museum curators, to name four, beg do differ. Your opinions are unsourced original research. If you have a good source who published the opinion that Peart, Catterson, Salvadori and the AMA were mistaken, then cite it and we'll describe the controversy in neutral fashion. Otherwise, there is no controversy in the real world; only a Wikipedia artificial controversy. So let's assemble our citations, put it in BMW GS, and stop complaining. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- (And it wasn't only a paean to the BMW bike. Many of Peart's troubles could be traced to the difficulty in getting parts and repairs, and to BMW's infamous complexity and overengineering, for his niche market bike. And by the way, Peart's very first motorcycle was a gift from his departed, lamented wife. She gave him a -- wait for it -- BMW! I know Wikipedia is biased against emotion and the human face of relationships, but Wikipedia also has a policy to try to overcome that bias. This is not a one-dimensional tale.)--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)<
- ‘So then what is the problem with ignoring all the fussy little differences between BMW's many adventure bikes and putting it in BMW GS?’
- The problem is that in the same way that the R1100GS is not a unique model - as you have now inadvertently admitted - then neither is the GS range uniquely distinctive enough to warrant inclusion.
- Another problem is that you have now admitted - albeit unintentionally - that you knew the R1100GS wasn’t unique - which means you are suddenly abandoning an argument you have maintained for over 3 weeks! - and it also means you were not arguing in good faith.
- And now, instead, you want to start another debate over the uniqueness of the GS range? It is the same unprovable, unsustainable argument dressed up in different clothes. (And how can we trust that you even believe it yourself, after you’ve argued so long for something you now admit you knew wasn’t true?)
- And on top of all that, you are now saying that the R1100GS is distinctive because of a certain kind of unreliability? That doesn’t make any common sense - because any other bike that was as unreliable or similarly unreliable or comparably unreliable would have given Peart very similar problems to deal with. Again proving the BMW wasn’t unique in either model or range.
- You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down (!). Which is an incredibly odd and disingenuous argument - And certainly an argument that does not stand up to examination.
- I think anyone taking the time to read the ample evidence above can see that it does disprove the case for uniqueness. And it also proves ther case for deleting the article section material. And if the case against deletion has degenerated to the level of the arguments that are now being advanced, then I think that in a way that says as much about your case as I could.
- Rivercard (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Fine. Name a motorcycle made before 1997 that could have served just as well as one of BMW's big twins?
("You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down" This is an example of one of the fallacious arguments I generally don't bother with. Scroll up and read what I wrote again. Keep re-reading until you spot the fallacy. Hint: the reason you find it so "incrediby [sic] odd" is that in your zeal to detect errors, your reading comprehension has failed you. Try assuming I'm as intelligent as I appear to be, following the principle of charity. Imagine how much time we could have saved had you done that. ) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- As a counterpoint, here is an edit from just this morning that gives a genuine example of what WP:WPACT is actually meant for. Notice the total lack of third party citations? A careful search turns up zero quality sources that mention the model of bike in the Austin Powers Goldmember film. If good sources had noted it, it would satisfy WP:TRIVIA and WP:CONPOL. WP:WPACT has been applied for the last 3 years in a way consistent with the spirit and letter of the controlling WP policies, until this BMW R1100GS case, where the strict wording of WP:WPACT is being applied literally, revealing the inconsistency with policy. Hence the need to ignore to flawed Automobile Convention and rely on actual Policies and Guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- 'You seem to be saying that the Ghost Rider book section should be included because Peart used a bike that broke down in a way that no other motorbike breaks down" This is an example of one of the fallacious arguments I generally don't bother with.' - Well, you really should bother with it because that argument is not mine, it is yours. I was simply summising it. Again, you are finding fault with your own contentions. Re: 'Many of Peart's troubles could be traced to the difficulty in getting parts and repairs, and to BMW's infamous complexity..' So you advance an argument only to then deny it when it is disproved. Which is, that another bike could also have presented difficulties for Peart to deal with. (So no zeal at all is needed to detect such errors, just simple logic.)
- I also notice that you are not addressing the question that after 3 weeks of discussion - and 3 weeks of you asserting the uniqueness of the R1100GS - you have now just abandoned that argument. You abandoned it after you quoted BMW's David Rob describing the proliferation of models - and it's a quote which unintentionally revealed your own bad faith in this discussion. Imagine how much time we could have saved had you not embarked upon an argument that even you did not believe.
- There's plenty of evidence above that disproves the case for admitting into the BMW R1100GS article a separate section on a book called Ghost Rider just because it features a R1100GS bike.
Rivercard (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 4
So in my first edit on this issue, at 12:58 GMT, 15 March 2012, my edit summary said "With minimal research, it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. see WP:POINT"
Next, I followed up on the talk page, at 13:01 GMT, 15 March 2012, where I wrote "It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS." and linked to four sources.
A scant 3 hours later, before anybody else commented, I added to the talk page 16:00, 15 March 2012: "Furthermore, the basic reason why this is relevant is that the sources tell us that it is relevant. Wikipedia is, ideally, a slave to its sources, and has no need of editors' opinions." I also said, "The only issue is that the section on Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road should be expanded to explain more about the role the bike played," which Coaster92 echoed later: "I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process." Not counting votestacking brought in by canvassing for editors with a grudge, we have consensus on that, and right there should be where this is resolved.
Biker Biker made the same point at 14:22, 15 March 2012: "The information is relevant and well sourced."
Since then I have repeated again and again that the fundamental reason for keeping this is because the sources tell us it is relevant. The secondary argument can also be made that it should be kept because it mattered that the bike was a BMW GS, but that has not been the main argument since March 15. March 15 was Day One of this dispute. So the "uniqueness" argument was the only argument for exactly 3 hours, not 3 weeks.
So all this business about having only argued for the uniqueness for 3 weeks and then abandoning that argument is demonstrably false. Can we drop it? I don't even know why you think other editors will support deletion of content on the grounds that some other editor supposedly changed his mind about which argument to make. It's ad hominem, and so has no bearing on the real issue.
By the by, both Elen of the Roads and Dennis Brown have stated that the deleted section must be restored until this dispute is resolved. Since 842U seems to have lost interest, can you take care of that? Elen of the Roads also cited even more instances, where media appearances have community support, further undermining WP:WPACT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey! I almost forgot. Please tell me the name of which motorcycle made before 1997 could have been a substitute for a BMW GS. Obviously, it's not the main argument, but if you can't even think of one equivalent bike, then we don't even need to waste much time on the further arguments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- We've been over this ground, above, more than once - But you seem to want it reiterating again:
- You said: "it can be cited why it mattered that Peart rode an R1100GS" and "It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS" - First, good to see you're admitting that your contention was that you thought it mattered that the bike was an R1100GS. Second, there's ample evidence above (see Blue-numbered summation) that your claim is erroneous and that there is no proof that R1100GS was uniquely the only bike. Third, also good to see that even you yourself have finally admitted that Peart could have used another bike, when you quoted BMW's David Rob saying:
- "Be that as it may, if the issue is that the GS1100R is not distinct enough from the other the BMW GS adventure touring bikes -- after all, BMW's David Rob said, 'We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments' " - Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You said: '"It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS." and linked to four sources.' You have tried to use this dubious 4-source argument before - see above after 'BMW R1100GS (Reopened) section break 1' - and the answer then is the same as the answer now:
- Comment
The first argument you presented on the article talk page was: ‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See [11][12][13][14]'. Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely: source [1] simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’
source [2] is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: ‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’.
source [3] is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name.
source [4] is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but none mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for pedal bikes not motorbikes.
- So, this is extremely weak sourcing no matter how many times you mention it. And none of it proves your opening claim (yet it is presented as if conclusive). It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should not be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page.
- Re: the question of thinking of another bike. This is simply negative proof arguing. Meaning, the burden of proof lies with you to prove the 'uniqueness' of the bike that you have been advancing; other Wikipedians do not have to research all the other bikes that could have been used. Simple example: you could say you'd driven around LA in a certain car and that no other car could have been used - the car was unique to the experience. Well, if that claim is false, it is not then beholden on other Wikipedians to find all the other cars that could have been used (!). It is beholden on you to prove the veracity of your original assertion and provide evidence.
- You have quoted only two editors who suggest it should be reinstated but there are four editors who think it should remain deleted - so that is not conclusive for reinstation.
Rivercard (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- (Sidebar - Sorry, earlier I forgot to mention the other two points on which you wanted my opinion. First, re: your mention of apparent intelligence; I think a modicum of modesty would suggest that this is for others to decide about you rather than for you to claim for yourself. And second, re: the retributive '[sic]': my initial use of it was regarding word usage; your use of it is regarding a typo. But I think we’ve both learnt something valuable from each other. I’ve learnt from you to be more careful when I type the word ‘incredibly’ and, from me, you have learnt the distinct but subtle difference in meaning between ‘refute’ and ‘rebut’. So, warm congratulations: on this one, you’ve definitely learnt more.) Rivercard (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- And your new suggestion that the R1100Gs be subsumed into the generic GS range was not made until 7th April, 3 weeks after the discussion began - see comment: 'Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)' - Rivercard (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Biker Biker and I consider the section well supported. No fewer than 3 editors have told you, repeatedly, that when there is no consensus, cited material is kept, not deleted. Elen of the Roads pointed out that several other articles have similar sections, along with the half dozen Featured Articles I mentioned elsewhere. Coaster92 agrees with me that the problem is only that the section needs to be expanded with specific citations. I even offered to leave it deleted for now if you will leave it alone once I provide the expanded examples and citations. I also offered to move it to BMW GS, but that compromise was rejected.
All you've got are 842U and Iglooflame, two users with grievances against me who were canvassed to join this dispute, in violation of policy, in order to stack the vote. Discounting the ringers who should not have been recruited, you've got nothing. You've won over zero objective editors to your side. You say the bike was not unique, but you can't name even one equivalent bike. It's over. Please restore the section and let it go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion Since there seems to be an impasse with whether to include or disclude the content, and the significant amount of discussion has taken place, I see nothing more that DRN can do for you. At this point it appears that the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee are your best alternatives for attempting to get this resolved. Would this satisfy all involved users? Hasteur (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Considering the this was tainted by canvassing to an unknown degree, then unless one of my compromises is accepted, this has to go to mediation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Re: Coaster92, Iglooflmae and 842U.
Iglooflame was not 'canvassed', they were notified, as per policy, of a discussion in which they were involved. Perfectly normal, as other editors in the discussion have already pointed out to you here. It is partisan and selective to deny the legitimacy of 842U's view here just because you have disagreed with them in the past (and especially if you have disagreed regarding similar behaviour of your own) - And, by that standard, then, BikerBiker's support of you would also be illegitmate by dint of their previous favourable links to you. (Do you see how that works?: there isn't one rule for you, and one rule for other editors.) Finally, you are wrongly paraphrasing Coaster92; what they actually said was, 'find a persective there [in the book] that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process... If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.' You've had plenty of chance to quote from the book (presumably you own a copy) but no quote has been forthcoming. In which case, Coaste92's last sentence stands: If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant. and therefore does not support your case. 'You say the bike was not unique, but you can't name even on equivalent bike.' - Please read again the paragraph above on negative proof arguing; the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on other Wikipedians to try to find all the other bikes that could have been used.
(And if you do want to know of some other bikes, just look back at your own quote earlier from BMW's David Rob who noted they had 19 models over two sectors. Or if, because of limited knowledge of this sector, you are personally unaware of comparable bikes, feel free to canvass biker Wikipedians to pitch in their suggestions to you.)
Rivercard (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Important to Note: There was no taint by 'canvassing', as has already been shown, only policy-recommended notification. And user Dennis Bratland's deliberate and continual mischaracterising of one as the other is certainly not helpful and is transparently partisan. But thanks to Hasteur (talk) for the further suggestions. Rivercard (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still putting together all the citations, from Ghost Writer (550 pages), the AMA's 160 page book on the "Motostars" exhibit, and two long magazine reviews. I assure you, there are many, many citations to more than meet Coaster92's request. I offered to let this drop for now, and then once I'm done writing it all up, put the section back in BMW R1100GS or BMW GS. Just to please you. What's the problem with that offer? It satisfies the request, in due time, and until then you get what you wanted. Especially since your laughable argument that providing an example that it's not unique is proving a negative (!). The real problem is, you haven't read the damn book, or researched adventure touring motorcycling at all. You don't even know what special things Peart's bike did for him in Ghost Rider because you have no idea what the book says. Read the sources before coming to Dispute Resolution. I did. You came to the article BMW R1100GS to get back at Biker Biker for deleting your stuff from the VW Corrado page and you're in way over your head. It's sad.
Of course, as I and Elen of Roads and others have said, uniqueness isn't the sole, ultimate criterion. Policy only requires decent sources, not uniqueness. T.E Lawrence could have bashed his head in on any bike, not just a Brough-Superior SS100, and Starsky and Hutch didn't have to drive a Ford Gran Torino. Sources are sources, and sources say it goes in the article, even if the bike or car isn't "unique". But I'm willing to meet you halfway, and to let this lie until I deliver the promised citations. It's a good compromise. You can deny, deny, deny the canvassing all you want, but the fact is, the alternative is mediation because of the canvassing skunked the process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- The so-called 'canvassing' doesn't need to be denied (even thrice (nice melodramatic touch)) because it doesn't exist. All that needs to be denied is your mischaracterisation of perfectly normal discussion notifications as canvassing. They are not the same thing, as other editors have already tried to explain to you.
- Your intention wavers uncertainly between 3 different assertions, depending on which ones are currently being disproved:
(1) Trying to prove the bike is unique because of what it can do - even though you have already conceded that claim by admitting that there were other model/range bikes he could have used. So, that claim died on the operating table at your own hand. I expect its family might sue for malpractice.
(2) Then stating that the bike was unique because of what it couldn't do (it's weaknesses/parts availability, etc), and expecting other editors to list other bikes that would fail in the same way. That is not only (again) negative proof arguing, it is also slightly infantilised reasoning. The burden of proof is on the user who wants to include the material. I think I've done enough time at the wheel in disproving your original 'sources', let alone assembling evidence of other bikes not nominated for inclusion!
(3) This is the one you seem to find most difficult to grasp (unless it is deliberate obsfucation): Hold on now, little Dezzer, this is going to be a bumpy ride - Even if Peart states explicitly in his book 'As I said to my good friend, Dennis Bratland, I could not have done this journey on any other bike ever made or that ever will be made, ever, (even in the future) other than the R1100GS." he would still be wrong. I know that the cognitive dissonance experienced by reading that may cause your face to melt, but it is true nonetheless.
- So, however much Peart might eulogise in his book about how much he loves his R1100GS - it doesn't matter - because the R1100GS is a bike that could have been replaced by another of BMW’s dual-sport range or, indeed, another suitable dual-sport motorbike. And, crucially, that would still be true whether Peart knew it or not.
- Are you aware of a quote from BMW's David Robb, Vice President of Motorcycle Design, who, on the matter of model proliferation, said: "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments, and we were fighting ourselves for these sectors." '
- This all means that even if Peart genuinely thought there was no other bike he could have used, he would have actually been wrong. And information cannot be included if it is based on erroneous beliefs, however geuninely they were held at the time. So what this means is that trawling through the Ghost Rider book will, at best, provide material that only proves Peart either did not know about comparable bikes he could have used or that he might favour one over the other. But by all means read it anyway; reading is good.
- Rivercard (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I think 80% of the text of your posts is copy-pastes of your previous posts. So it forms a kind of diminishing echo. Can you put the 20% that is new a special color, like green or something? Because I'm not so interested in the recycled filler.
Anyhoo, is that a yes or no to the suggestion of closing this and going to mediation? And if it's a no, then what do you think is going to come of all this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it's only when you resurrect old claims that I have to wearily present the same answers - the answers don't change, can't possibly change, in fact, because the evidence doesn't change. The answer to 2 + 2 will always be... well, you know what I'm saying. Anyway, I thought you were reading the book looking for undisputable evidence of Peart's belief in the uniqueness of the bike? (the key word there being 'belief'). So I'm quite happy to wait for you to do that. By the way, what did you think of my suggestion of requesting other Wikipedian bikers to suggest other comparable bikes?
Rivercard (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Canvassing on user talk pages is a terrible idea. You can post a short, neutral message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling but I think everyone there has probably caught wind of this and doesn't care to waste a weekend reading all of it. But whatever.
"I thought you were reading the book looking for undisputable evidence of Peart's belief in the uniqueness of the bike?" Poor reading comprehension made you think that. Let's close this now, and I'll restore the expanded, cited section to the article in due time. If you still have a problem with it then, we can open a mediation case. You might want to have read the book by then. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't mean canvassing on user 'Talk' pages. A message on the project page is also what I had in mind. Then you'd get all the suggestions of comparable bikes that you wanted. You do want them, still, don't you? Not sure why your dig (another one of your interminable digs) has reared its head re: reading comprehension. I took you at your word when you said earlier you were reading the book looking for evidence. Don't criticise me now for actually believing you on something.
If you 'revert' the deleted section 'in time', whether expanded or not, you will be doing so in the face of unprovided necessary evidence, which would only justify deletion. You've already admitted yourself that the bike isn't unique, so it cannot be included on that basis. And I've already asserted that even Peart's belief in it's uniqueness would be wrong - which then completely invalidates the book as a source. So, no, I'm not agreeing to close this because those are two central cases you still need to prove. And you can try to prove them here. And, just thought, since you keep banging the drum about other bikes, I'll humour you for a second by falling into step with your insistent beat - what about the Triumph Tiger (the 'Nine'!)? Very similar to the GS, but with the great addition of being prettier. Which wouldn't be difficult considering the BM's a bit of a swine, lookswise. See, Brits always did make good-looking bikes. The Germans? Hmm...
Rivercard (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and re: 'You might want to have read the book by then.' I don't have to read the book, sunshine - you do. You're the one looking for the evidence that you said is within. Rivercard (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Based on the speed at which these responses are being written I'm almost certain that you aren't reading the other person's point. I'm going to close this thread in 24 hours from 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC) with a suggestion that one or all of you take the debate to MEDCAB or MEDCOM. Know that if you go there, they will enforce structure and order on the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hasteur, sorry to disabuse you of your 'certainty' (well, you did at least say 'almost'), but, at least on my side, you're wrong; I am reading the responses. And even a quick scan of the timelines shows gaps of 14, 11, 12 and 37 minutes between posts. That's plenty of time for someone, certainly for me, to read those fairly short posts and compose a reply. I know some people think of reading and writing as a chore and take ages to do either, but I don't (think that way) and I don't (take ages). Thanks.
Rivercard (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Resolved