Design
Loving the car myself, the four wheels are entirely indepentdant of the other, mean that this is technically not a motorcycle. This (the independant wheel) is to aid turning and stability at high speeds, and the four wheels in the first place is to deal with the five hundred horsepower coming the from the 588 V10. :D im a huge viper fan. --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT-No, the turning thing can't be officially verified, but many have said that it makes perfect sense, i won't put it in the article, im just answering peoples questions here.
- The overall design is very very bad and the engine power and rpms ridiculous when compared with motorbike engines. I doubt that four wheels are needed to deal with 500 hp, because there exists 1000 hp motorbikes with two wheels. I think that four wheels are a requirement to aid for lateral inertia of the engine. JuanR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC).
Handling?
The article claims that the 4-wheeled configuration is to aid turning.. can anyone verify this? All's I've read on the subject is that 4 wheels were necessary to deal with the power output of the engine. ZoFreX 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It cannot be verified, it is the authors' POV. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's the laugh of the century. BTW did you mean me as the author who forced his POV here? +MATIA ☎ 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
From what i know, the wheels are on independent suspensions, allowing the wheels to slide by each other when the bike goes into a turn, allowing all four wheels to keep contact and allowing the bike to maintain a better grip through the turn.
- I had read too something like that, but I don't remember where. talk to +MATIA 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Correct.The Walkin Dude 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that four wheels are needed to deal with 500 hp, because there exists 1000 hp motorbikes with two wheels. I think that four wheels are a requirement to aid for lateral inertia of that bad engine. Moreover, I doubt that two wheeler back are for providing enough grip because the wheels are ridiculously tiny (150 wide). Any powerful motorbike has a rear 190 wide tire and there many mods with a +320 wide. JuanR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC).
Broken link
The Official Dodge link is currently broken. --saritonin 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Top speed?
I think it should be noted that the REAL WORLD top speed of this bike, so far is 35MPH, it has not been documented ever going any faster to my knowledge. A professional rider was driving the bike, in a showdown between it and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa(A 4 cylinder, 1300cc, 170HP engine). The driver of the Dodge Tomahawk only got to 35mph before he dropped the bike. It was completely useless. The Hayabusa was/is the worlds fastest production motorcycle. The Hayabusa is likely to remain the fastest because after the year 2000, ALL motorcycle companies reached an agreement to limit ALL motorcycles to 300KPH(Roughly 186MPH). The 1999 Hayabusa was clocked, dead stock at 200.2MPH in England. Because of the agreement, I don't think that speed will ever be broken by a stock bike, even though the current Kawasaki ZX-14 has more power, it is limited to 186 MPH in stock form, and there are still questions about it even reaching 200mph unrestricted due to wind resistance/aerodynamics.
Wikipedia prides itself on not printing opinions and fact checking, yet they tolerate this article saying that the bike has an estimated top speed of 300+ MPH. I could estimate my car goes 10,000 MPH, it can't, but you can't prove it can't and I am pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to ype it on a page here at Wikipedia. I don;t think that just because Dodge said it, it should be put on the page, unless it can be proven. If anything, it has been proven it can-NOT go 300+ mph, nor did it prove it's 0-60 claim of 2.5 seconds, as it ONLY reached 35 mph before it became so unstable that it was dropped by a professional rider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.187.173 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It must be emphasized that previous claim by Dodge were that the bike goes beyond 400 mph (which was just theoretical nonsense). After public scorn, they reduced the claim to +300 mph (which continues being laughable). It is doubt that can go beyond the 50mph. JuanR (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Concept Design Links Between Tomahawk and the Batcycle
I'm new to Wikipedia discussions, so if this is kind of speculation is frowned upon, feel free to delete. is there any evidence showing that concepts were taken from the Tomahawk to produce the Batcycle in the The Dark Knight, especially between the unusally rectangular shape as well as the additional wheels? --64.13.68.118 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you mean the Batpod, which is a two-wheeled vehicle with 20″ drag tires. There is nothing similar to Tomahawk, except that both were best designed to be quiet :-) JuanR (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC).
Top speed 400 mph: absurd
Please carefully read the cited article at Popular Science:
- "Dodge's 4-Wheel Tomahawk", Popular Science, vol. 262, no. 4, Bonnier Corporation, April 2003, ISSN 0161-7370
The idea that the Dodge Tomahawk could to over 400 mph is patently absurd, as explained in Popular Science. Unreliable sites, mostly anonymous blogs laden with ads, like http://www.exoticcars.ws/dodge-tomahawk/, or WP:USERGENERATED sites like http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_speed_of_dodge_tomahawk are incorrect when they say that Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could go 400 or 420 mph. Dodge first announced a speed of 420 mph, then later revised that down to a much lower, but equally laughable, 300 mph. In reality, the Tomahawk has not been verified to be mobile at all. Dodge admits the Tomahawk is a sculpture, not a vehicle. There is no evidence you could ride it through a parking lot at 5 mph. Dodge shipped them in an unrideble condition, allowed nobody to test them, and did not make good on their promise to bring a Tomahawk to Bonneville for a speed trial.
Please do not add any more misleading information to this article. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and only cite reliable, verifiable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Tomahawk vs Viper video
This video begins by saying that the Tomahawk has a top speed of 420 mph, which is "not surprising" since it has the same engine as the Dodge Viper with "half the weight". This absurd reasoning, that top speed is a function of horsepower and weight, has been repeatedly debunked. The video then goes on to promise a drag race, which is a much different thing than measuring top speed. But since the program demonstrates Idiocracy-level intelligence, it has to be disqualified as a reliable source. TV shows like this are not quality sources, they exist merely to entertain the lowest common denominator.
The internet and TV are filled with wrongheaded assertions about the Dodge Tomahawk written by juveniles, and the only goal of this article should be to show how silly those assertions are. Numerous experts have made clear the Tomahawk is a joke, and those who dispute that have shown themselves to be woefully ignorant. Wikipedia's policy is not to give ignorant opinions equal weight. See WP:FRINGE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"extraordinary"
This word is... 1. a peacock term to be avoided in articles. 2. not related to the credibility (or lack of) any claims 3. giving undue weight to something that is covered later in the article. (and later in the lead)
Please don't revert me just to prove some form of point, just because you disagreed with my edits on other articles. I know you're a well established editor in the field of bikes, but that's not to say that my edits are no less valid. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think of another word to replace the incorrectly used 'extraordinary' and the most accurate term that I can think of is 'optimistic' which still stinks of OR. The fact that 'derided' is used in the lead gives the readers all the information they require, more weight on the fact that their claim was silly, would be undue weight. We don't have terms like 'extraordinary claim' in blatant pseudoscience articles, so it's not warranted here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. You're watering it down, making vague, and less accurate. There is no reason we can't use specific language to describe what actually happened. It was extraordinary; no comparable motorcycle had ever gone 420mph. They might as well have said the Tomahawk could fly to the moon. The response was not mere skepticism. It was "derision". They chuckled and laughed at Dodge for their silly hyperbole. This is all in the sources. I don't know which pseudoscience articles you wish to copy. Unless you're referring to an FA then I don't think I want to imitate their mistakes. I do know WP:V says we write what's in the sources, not a distorted version of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think of another word to replace the incorrectly used 'extraordinary' and the most accurate term that I can think of is 'optimistic' which still stinks of OR. The fact that 'derided' is used in the lead gives the readers all the information they require, more weight on the fact that their claim was silly, would be undue weight. We don't have terms like 'extraordinary claim' in blatant pseudoscience articles, so it's not warranted here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- To repeat, you do not have consensus for this change. Reverting is no substitute for discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP:OR WP:PEACOCK WP:UNDUE and besides all of those...you are using the word in the wrong way. You are trying to imply that the claim made regarding top speed was extraordinary does not equal a , derision, lack of credibility, dubious, viewed with skepticism etc etc...
In a conversation, I would agree that the claims were extraordinary and the actual claimed speed was also extraordinary - however in a wikipedia article (and especially in the lead) that term is unsuitable. Would you like me to go the Ducati 916 article and put "The Ducati 916 is a very very pretty sport bike motorcycle made by Ducati from 1994 to 1998." just because some article say it's a nice looking bike? Note that the Hayabusa article states "The Suzuki Hayabusa (or GSX1300R) is a sport bike motorcycle made by Suzuki since 1999. It immediately won acclaim as the world's fastest production motorcycle, with a top speed of 188 to 194 miles per hour (303 to 312 km/h)." and it doesn't state "The Suzuki Hayabusa (or GSX1300R) is a extraordinarily fast sport bike motorcycle made by Suzuki since 1999."
I'm pretty sure that removing original research, peacock terms and undue weight all have established consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- If this were controversial I would take a different approach, and balance the competing viewpoints. But this is uncontroversial. The announcement that this thing could go over 400 mph was beyond comprehension. It was the very definition of an extraordinary claim, literally defying the laws of physics, specifically that this bike could not travel in a vacuum. The universal response among credible sources was laughter, derision. They Hayabusa was nothing like the Tomahawk. The Hayabusa was real and did exactly what they said it could to, and it proved it. It was impressively fast, but no so fast that anyone had to rewrite the laws of nature to account for it. A Tomahawk going 400 -- even over 200 really -- would be proof that magic is real.
There's a tendency on Wikipedia to tone everything down to the same level of boring banality. Take off the rough edges. The problem with that is when it flies in the face of what our sources have given us. Pretending the Tomahawk was comparable to a real bike like the Hayabusa is false, it's misleading. It was not a real bike, not anything like an actual speed record machine. It's sort of cool if you accept it on its own terms, but the notion that it could actually go that fast must be presented as absurd.
If there are credible sources we can site that say otherwise, then we'd have to re-balance the points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course it can't achieve the claimed speed, that is common sense and easily stated with credible sources. There are enough credible sources to say the claims were (derided/met with skepticism/etc) that is not disputed and not what I am attempting to remove from the article. It's not as if readers will suddenly think the claims are accurate with the removal of the word "extraordinary" - removing that term removes the editors opinion regarding the claims. We are not here to lead people to opinions with terms like that, we are here to present facts and let the readers work it out themselves. If this was an opinion piece on a blog, I would be more than happy to write "the dumbass topspeed claims" but it is neither a blog, nor a place for editor opinions. Stating "no consensus" when the text is currently in breach of numerous clearly stated wikipedia rules (all of which were formed with consensus) doesn't really count for much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- This seems to be a waste of time right now, rather than just get into a nasty revert cycle, I have requested a 3rd opinion, that might resolve this in a more efficient manner. Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment remove "extraordinary" as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The cited source (in body of the article) simply says "Dodge first announced a top speed of 420 mph" (p. 59) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for changing this article to something that is less factual. You are totally incorrect when you assert that Popular Science "simply says" the speed was announced as 420 mph here. What it actually says is "The bike's name was inspired by the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and it may be equally ridable. Dodge first announced a top speed of 420 mph, then dropped it to '300+'. Can we ride the bike to its top speed? 'No.' Can we talk to one of your company riders? 'No' Can you give us some riding impressions? "No." Can we use the bathroom? 'No.'" That is derision. It's a whole paragraph of sustained mockery. Popular Science is scoffing at the absurd claim that the bike could go 420, and scoffing at the equally absurd claim that it could go 300+. It is utterly misleading to describe that is "simply saying" they announced a top speed of 420.
In addition, the introduction of the article is not merely about one source. It is a complete summary of all the contents, drawing from many sources. If you read all of them, you will see that there is no controversy over the fact that Dodge's claim was no more plausible than saying the Tomahawk could fly to the moon. We'll need to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard now. I'll need a little time -- I have no idea what the rush is to get this article changed now. It has been stable for three years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for changing this article to something that is less factual. You are totally incorrect when you assert that Popular Science "simply says" the speed was announced as 420 mph here. What it actually says is "The bike's name was inspired by the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and it may be equally ridable. Dodge first announced a top speed of 420 mph, then dropped it to '300+'. Can we ride the bike to its top speed? 'No.' Can we talk to one of your company riders? 'No' Can you give us some riding impressions? "No." Can we use the bathroom? 'No.'" That is derision. It's a whole paragraph of sustained mockery. Popular Science is scoffing at the absurd claim that the bike could go 420, and scoffing at the equally absurd claim that it could go 300+. It is utterly misleading to describe that is "simply saying" they announced a top speed of 420.
- The word derision or derided is not under dispute. My edit did not remove that term and as I have previously stated, I support an inclusion along the lines of derided/viewed with skepticism, so please don't try to distract or mislead other editors regarding my intentions about the article. I want to remove the term "extraordinary" because of wikipedia standards regarding WP:OR WP:PEACOCK WP:UNDUE .
- From every statement you have made regard this issue, it's obvious your desire to include that term is based on your opinions about the validity and reception of the top speed claim. I agree with those opinions, it was a stupid claim - but that is original research, readers deserve facts and the ability to make up their own minds about the claim and it's reception.
- You expressed the desire for discussion, so I got a 3rd opinion. You don't like that opinion, so you reverted. If you want to go to dispute resolution, then don't claim you will need more time. You had the time to reply here, you had the time to revert my edit, so you have the time to go to dispute resolution, well unless you feel that reverting someone has priority over resolving issues, which if I wasn't assuming good faith, would seem to be what you were doing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Dennis Bratland:, yes, in a common sense world I would call it extraordinary, and a common sense reading of Popular Mechanics would lead me to call it extraordinary. But that common sense element is original research, and the very world is NPOV. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources', and for the literally extraordinary, a source to be quoted on "extraordinary" is the only way I can see that word making its way to the encyclopedia.
- Notwithstanding, your point about the lead being a summary of the entire article is valid. But the body of the article makes no reference to the ordinary, so I don't see how "extraordinary" is warranted that way either. Personally, I think Dispute Resolution is a bit too heavy for this, especially so when you are receiving Third Opinion input. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- If it is in the sources, it is not original research. Another word we could substitute for "extraordinary" is "outlandish". Anything that treats this "420 mph" claim (or 300 mph) as a valid theory or conjecture is no better than treating flat Earth theory as valid, in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. See my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- You expressed the desire for discussion, so I got a 3rd opinion. You don't like that opinion, so you reverted. If you want to go to dispute resolution, then don't claim you will need more time. You had the time to reply here, you had the time to revert my edit, so you have the time to go to dispute resolution, well unless you feel that reverting someone has priority over resolving issues, which if I wasn't assuming good faith, would seem to be what you were doing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you User:Finnusertop for taking your time to help with this discussion, an outside opinion is always very helpful.
- Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dodge_Tomahawk.23.22extraordinary.22_discussion
- I didn't really want dispute resolution over the use of one single word, but as Dennis expressed a desire and also that he would do it "later", I started the ball rolling.
- Finally, I would love to find a nice source that we could use, or a nice rewording along the lines of "top speed that was considered dubious by some industry sources" to resolve this issue. It's a stupid top speed claim, but we need to leave that either to sources to say, or to readers to work out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm hunting for sources, 50% of them are just copy/paste from wikipedia. 40% are unreliable sources. 10% just say the specs. Without a good source, I'm starting to get the feeling that the best we can do, in order to remain neutral is to focus on the reaction to the claims, we can't comment on the claims. "top speed claim that was met with skepticism"/"contested/disputed top speed claim"/"top speed claim that industry specialists stated was inaccurate"
- The Lamborghini Miura article is a good example. "The car is widely considered to have instigated the trend of high performance, two-seater, mid-engined sports cars.[4] When released, it was the fastest production road car available." The first line states the opinions of a source, it does not portray those opinions as a fact. The second line states a fact. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is against policy to "remain neutral" between nonsense claims, and actual physical reality. We don't treat fantasy and reality as being on equal footing. See my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved editor: Came here from DRN, where I saw the case filing. Not sure if the result there would be any different than here - perhaps going to the no original research noticeboard (WP:NORN} would be a better choice for more definitive input.
As for the disputed descriptor, I find the whole first paragraph problematic. It appears constructed to create an impression of the Tomahawk as a bogus ultra-high-speed vehicle, when the sources as I read them clearly present it primarily as a limited edition novelty, a collector's item, a "rolling sculpture," an over-the-top construction built around a humongous sports car engine, certainly not a serious contender for land speed records, as the current lead paragraph suggests:
- "The Dodge Tomahawk was a non–street legal concept vehicle introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records, and the Tomahawk never demonstrated a speed above 100 mph (160 km/h)."
A more accurate version would be something like:
- "The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle, introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle, built around a 500hp Viper sports car engine, was described by Dodge as a "rolling sculpture." The original claim of a theoretical top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) has not been tested."
This seems both unambiguously factual and true to the the impression given by the sources. Original characterizations such as "extraordinary" and "derided," and extrapolating the casual comments of two experts ("Looking at photos of the Tomahawk, Joe was dubious") as "derided by experts in land speed records," create an unsupported view. --Tsavage (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is far less accurate. It is not "theoretical". There is no "theory" to support the idea it could go that fast. The assertion that it could go 420 mph was bogus (and changing the number to 300 was just as bogus). It would be like going to an article like Lord Voldemort and deleting the word "fictional" and merely stating that "no proof of Lord Voldemort's existence or magical powers has been found, scientists claim". It is physically impossible for this thing to have reached any speed even close to what they said. Saying that it has merely "not been tested" is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE in the WP:NPOV policy, comparable to "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones." All of our credible sources tell us exactly this. Wikipedia does not give nonsense equal footing to actual reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Some quotations to show that sources consistently scoff at the idea that this bike's top speed is anything but fiction. I don't have time to provide all these quotes at once, so here is the first one, from Bass, Eric. "Cruising Rider's 2005 Bike of the Year: Triumph Rocket III." Cruising Rider May 2005: p. 52+. " What really makes the RIII such a great bike is that Triumph managed to deliver a truly extreme motorcycle without turning it into that most extreme of extremities, the nonsensical Dodge Tomahawk. You all remember the Tomahawk, don't you? Designed to showcase the Dodge Viper's 10-cylinder, 8277cc engine, the car company hand-pushed it up onto a platform awash in laser beams and scantily clad booth bunnies and announced to the press that it actually planned to build the monstrosity as a limited production model.
Of course, this preposterous proclamation caused those of us who actually know anything about motorcycles to laugh so hard that beverages of all kinds, colors and alcohol contents flew out of our collective noses. It was plain to see that, even with four tires, the bike's ability to apply its 500-hp and 525 ft.-lbs. of torque to the rear wheels or control it with the front were destined to remain as hypothetical as its claimed 2.5-second 0-to-60 time or 300-mph top speed." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the first of several quotes from Cycle World that cast extreme doubt on the truth of Chrysler's claims of the Tomahawk's power, speed, and performance, based on simple common sense and physical limitations: "Dodge Tomahawk; Ten cylinders, 500 horses, four wheels. Think of it as a Viper that got caught in a trash compactor." Phillips, John. Cycle World. April 2003. pages 70-74. "The first thing [Kirk] Bennet [Vice President of RM Corporation] had to invent was a cooling package. In the Viper's bulbous snout, of course, there's room for a radiator the size of an NFL end zone. But with the Tomahawk, the only available space was in the traditional gas-tank area , essentially nestled in the engine's see. Bennet redesigned the intake runners to rise vertically and draw atmosphere through two jutting scoops just beneath the handlebars— making us wonder if the V-10 still produces 500 bhp." More to come. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland: I understand perfectly what you're saying (snd it would seem so do the other two editors you've been disagreeing with), but the way you're attempting to insert that into the article isn't supported by sources. It's your original conclusion that the speed claim is "extraordinary," as you don't have a source saying that, or establishing "ordinary" in order for you to summarize the comparison. In the same way, "deride" (syn. "ridicule") is your conclusion, the comments you cite may seem to you to be ridicule, but may not to another, which is why you need a secondary source to say that the claims were derided.
- The main problem, however, is that your framing creates the impression that the Tomahawk is primarily about a performance/speed claim, which is not the impression I get from the sources: it's an expensive novelty item, an attention-grabber, not meant to be actually ridden, just gawked at and fired up. Perhaps this version is better:
- "The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle is built around a 500 hp Dodge Viper sports car engine. It was described by Dodge as "automotive sculpture": operational but intended for display only.[PopSci][Forbes]"
- What's wrong with saying "outlandish claims" instead of "extraordinary claims"? The point is that their claims of 420 and/or 300 mph were bullshit. The reason this matters, and the reason this belongs in the lead, is that the media attention generated by the "420 mph" bullshit is the only reason we have a Wikipedia article about this subject. This concept bike would fail WP:GNG without all the buzz generated by the outlandish (or extraordinary) speed claim. You can't eliminate the claim to notability from the lead.
The following quote is a useful because it takes you through some of the basic math necessary to guess if the Tomahawk could come anywhere close to the claimed speeds. Karr, Jeff. "Traumahawk: with its Tomakawk concept bike, Dodge jumps into the motorcycle business (maybe) with four wheels, 500 horsepower and 1500 pounds. Get your affairs in order. (Cover Story)." Motorcyclist Apr. 2003. Page. 34+; " The math says with 1-to-1 gearing, the Tomahawk has the potential to go approximately 400 mph in some sort of hypothetical netherworld--a speed at which the exposed rider would probably be abraded down to little more than a bloody stump by windblast.
Pull out a big cocktail napkin and a bottle of good scotch and you've got as good a shot at coming up with a reasonable number as anyone. As dirty as a frat-house ass joke, the Tomahawk at top speed would rip a hole in the atmosphere that would take years to heal.
Dodge likes to throw around a 300-plus-mph top-speed number, but we bet physics might intervene well before then. Consider high-speed benchmarks such as the Suzuki Hayabusa and Kawasaki ZX12R. Both are far smaller and cleaner, and go approximately 190 mph on 185 crankshaft horsepower. For the purposes of calculation, to make either of those conventional bikes go 300 mph, they would need to develop about 460 hp, because aerodynamic drag rises with the square of the speed. So the Tomahawk, with its, shall we say, elemental form, would need substantially more than that to hit the 300-mph mark. Probably something close to 700 hp or more if it's only 50 percent dirtier than a Hayabusa. (My, we are charitable today, aren't we?) With its current 500 hp, figure on a Tomahawk top speed of approximately 250 mph. What the Tomahawk would really do flat-out is as much an exercise in Darwinian natural selection as it is a physics problem. Anyone off-center enough to try it probably doesn't have the talent to do it. Pity the poor bastard who takes a locust in the face at that velocity. Whoops, spilled my scotch...and there go all my precision calculations."--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- What's wrong with saying "outlandish claims" instead of "extraordinary claims"? The point is that their claims of 420 and/or 300 mph were bullshit. The reason this matters, and the reason this belongs in the lead, is that the media attention generated by the "420 mph" bullshit is the only reason we have a Wikipedia article about this subject. This concept bike would fail WP:GNG without all the buzz generated by the outlandish (or extraordinary) speed claim. You can't eliminate the claim to notability from the lead.
- Dennis Bratland: You have not advanced your argument. This latest source is more cocktail napkin speculation about a top speed that no-one, let alone Dodge itself, is seriously trying to argue. All your sources seem to be having fun with being outraged: one author calls his brother, the motorcylce land speed record holder, who looks at some photos, and finds the claim "dubious." It makes another "wonder." Some speculate about resistance and required horsepower, others question the ability to apply torque. Dodge is calling it "automotive sculpture" intended for display not use. Yet you would turn all of that into a serous challenge of a top speed that isn't even the focus of much of the coverage (that would be the revised 300 mph).
- Your new WP:GNG argument, claiming that the coverage is mainly based on the 420mph claim, therefore the speed should be in up front and refuted in the lead, is also not supported by the sources. The Forbes and Popular Science articles are both quite in-depth and would together satisfy GNG on their own, and they mention speed in the fourth and fifth paragraph in, respectively - speed is not the main lead. It's pretty obvious that the whole over-the-top production - the look, the Viper engine, the cost - is what's interesting. A senior manager for the Chrysler group is quoted as saying, "Could you ride it down your driveway to the mailbox and back? Yes, if you are crazy enough." How serious about speed does that sound?
- All things considered, this all seems pretty squarely to be original research and a misrepresentation of the subject, a trifecta on contravening our core policies. --Tsavage (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Treating Dodge's claim as anything but a joke is misrepresentation. The calculations are correct. Do you actually have any facts to cite showing the estimated horsepower to attain that speed for the minimum drag is anywhere near as low as 500 bhp? Your entire denial rests on the fact that the author was laughing at Dodge while producing the facts. But who isn't laughing?
I'm not done. I post one source after another making two points: 1) the speed claim is absurd, 2) everyone who understands the topic responded with laughter, derision at Dodge's absurd claim. I supply one source, and you respond with nothing more than denial. I post another source that says the same things. And you simply deny it. You try to claim they're not saying what their obviously saying. Fine. I will keep posting source after source that says the same thing, and the weight of my argument keeps increasing. Proof by assertion is all you have, and it won't hold up under the weight of the evidence. Treating this "420 mph top speed" nonsense as merely one side of an unresolved dispute is what we mean by "false balance. It's against policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Treating Dodge's claim as anything but a joke is misrepresentation. The calculations are correct. Do you actually have any facts to cite showing the estimated horsepower to attain that speed for the minimum drag is anywhere near as low as 500 bhp? Your entire denial rests on the fact that the author was laughing at Dodge while producing the facts. But who isn't laughing?
- All things considered, this all seems pretty squarely to be original research and a misrepresentation of the subject, a trifecta on contravening our core policies. --Tsavage (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- The two main issues are
- 1 while we should not try to hide the facts about the bikes inability to reach the claimed top speed and media statements regarding those claims, right now the article is mainly focused on those facts rather than the bike itself. More bike/less speed claim issues.
- 2 the language/tone used is not neutral. There are plenty of outlandish claims in the automotive industry, Ferrari bring tuned cars to roadtests, everyone lies about bhp and these issues get mentioned in the article (not in the lead) with sentences such as "the factory claimed a top speed of X, however independent road tests were only able to reach Y."
- I suggest removing the top speed claim issue from the lead. It's notable, there should be a small section with the claimed top speed, the fact that it hasn't been proven, and the scientific explanation of why it is highly unrealistic - but none of that in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- No that violates policy, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. No. No. No. When you say removing the rejection of the speed claim is "neutral" you're saying it is taking an even position between two points of view. On the one hand, the point of view of every source we have. On the other hand, Dodge's ill-informed, anti-scientific marketing flacks. The next quote I'm going to post is directly from one of the marketing people who started the 400 mph nonsense, and that person specifically says the reason they they think 400+ mph is possible is because the Tomahawk weighs only 1,500 pounds, vs the 2700 lbs of the Viper. Top speed is is limited by weight! Not drag! (insert *laughter* from the engineers) That's where this comes from. Policy says we don't give balanced weight to unscientific points of view.
How come I'm the only one posting citations here? Where are your credible sources who think 300+ or 400+ mph is remotely possible? You're making armchair speculation with zero support. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- No that violates policy, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. No. No. No. When you say removing the rejection of the speed claim is "neutral" you're saying it is taking an even position between two points of view. On the one hand, the point of view of every source we have. On the other hand, Dodge's ill-informed, anti-scientific marketing flacks. The next quote I'm going to post is directly from one of the marketing people who started the 400 mph nonsense, and that person specifically says the reason they they think 400+ mph is possible is because the Tomahawk weighs only 1,500 pounds, vs the 2700 lbs of the Viper. Top speed is is limited by weight! Not drag! (insert *laughter* from the engineers) That's where this comes from. Policy says we don't give balanced weight to unscientific points of view.
- I suggest removing the top speed claim issue from the lead. It's notable, there should be a small section with the claimed top speed, the fact that it hasn't been proven, and the scientific explanation of why it is highly unrealistic - but none of that in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, was there a part of " we should not try to hide the facts about the bikes inability to reach the claimed top speed and media statements regarding those claims" or "It's notable, there should be a small section with the claimed top speed, the fact that it hasn't been proven, and the scientific explanation of why it is highly unrealistic" that implied that I wanted to remove the rejection of the top speed claims? Should I reword my previous statement to make it clearer? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dennis, I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not actually reading or taking in what is being said here. No one is claiming that the top speed claims are accurate. Credible sources to say the speed is possible are not require, as that is not what is being disputed.
What is being disputed is the fact that the article in its current state is not neutral and gives far too much focus to the speed claims. The article is not Dodge Tomahawk top speed claims Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Tsavage, thank you for your suggestion - the proposed replacement for the lead seems highly suitable for this article, as well as your reasoning behind it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland: We have three editors here who appear to be in agreement to a somewhat remarkable degree over the problems with your form of coverage of the top speed claims in the lead - I believe that's sufficient local consensus to make the change.
Furthermore, I don't see an implied consensus for the original inclusion of this material, in spite of the fact that it has been in the article for quite a long while, it seems more likely that no-one bothered to argue it. It has been challenged in the past:
- You added to the first paragraph the original comment along these lines in 2009: "The Tomahawk's impracticality was mocked by one wit as a "rideable engine stand."[23]
- It was challenged and removed in 2010, with the edit summary: "dumb quote which introduces bias and does not even name the so-called "wit")"[24]
- 12 months later, in 2011, you added another version to the first para: "Joe Teresi, of Easyriders magazine and owner of the world record setting streamliner ridden by Dave Campos, scoffed at this due to the importance of drag, and Dodge declined offers to put the top speed claim to a test."[25]
No prior consensus appears to exist, only your opinion as to how to cover the top speed claim, which is in a disproportionately prominent and mocking way. It's also seems from these versions that you wish to make it clear in Wikipedia's voice that not only is the speed claim unproven and unlikely, it was mocked, disregarding the fact that you don't have a source that says that "critics mocked the claims." It's pretty obvious that this needs to be fixed. --Tsavage (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- We don't vote on whether or not the Earth goes around the sun.
Here is another quote, from the April 2003 Cycle World cited above:
"At the unveiling DaimlerChrysler's dignitaries resembled high school juniors in Mrs. Grinder's fourth-period study hall, conjuring all manner of performance possibilities. Zero to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds, they eagerly reckoned— 1.4 seconds quicker than the Viper. Top speed? Well, here the speculation ran amok. 'This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring aero drag, works out to 420 mph' theorized one Chrysler rep. Offered another, 'If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy.'
Really? We naturally volunteered to test this assertion, but had to withdraw when no 400-mph-capable trousers could be located. Asked one journalist: 'As anyone ever seen a wing-walker on a Boeing 747? No? Possibly there's a reason.'"
This is probably clue to the source of the thinking of the non-engineering people at Chrysler who seem to believe top speed is limited by weight, rather than drag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland: You keep bringing out quotes that all illustrate what has already been addressed, that journalists and bike enthusiasts and anyone with access to a published forum are making sport of attacking the top speed claims - some may actually be outraged, but that's irrelevant - and no-one, beginning with Dodge itself, is arguing against any of that. No-one, including the editors you're arguing with here, is trying to say that the Tomahawk can achieve any high speed, or suggesting that unlikelihood should not be covered in the article. However, you also can't make too much of this, as, directly from the manufacturer, it's made clear that the bike is not intended to be ridden even down the driveway - theorizing about top speed is just part of the general media and blogosphere commentary, not an overriding central point about the Tomahawk.
- What you have done is synthesize all of this "no way it can go that fast" chatter into a Wikipedia statement using words like "outlandish," "scoffing," "deriding" - you are trying to make your own conclusion as a Wikipedia statement. You are assembling a bunch of sources, and characterizing them in a particular way: you say, "deriding," I say, "joking" - who's right? Exactly, it's not up to us anonymous editors to argue endlessly, whether one person's "ridicule" is another's "joke," and THAT is why we absolutely rely on reliable sources to decide: "ridicule"? "joke"? both? We find the source and report it, not report about it. You should (re)read WP:SYNTH.
- On top of that, while it is fine and useful to point out in the article that various sources found the top speed claims dubious and highly unlikely, to give that too much emphasis, without pointing out that Dodge itself said the bike is operational sculpture that's not meant to be ridden, gives the false impression that the speed claim was a major element in the product's appeal and coverage, when clearly, it was not (as I illustrated earlier by pointing out that two RS articles, together sufficient alone for GNG, didn't even mention speed until several paragraphs in). Over-emphasizing speed would then be creating a non-neutral point of view. You should (re)read WP:NPOV... And WP:VERIFIABLE, and the rest of WP:NOR as well... --Tsavage (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe this has really been discussed to this extent. This dodge tomahawk and I call it this because by definition it is not a motorcycle or even a real vehicle. IT is not legal to ride on the street. Was created to just show case a motor and as stated by it's creator dodge it is just a rolling sculpture . Has never been ridden more than 35 mph and even at that speed it was dumped by a professional rider! Even if it were stable enough to ride. I don't think it would be able to achieve any notable speed. Because of its drag coefficient is to great because the lack of fairings. But being a concept or rolling sculpture it does not need them. So to sum this up to make any claims of being the fastest motorcycle or any to speed claims are just absurd and really laughable. And why would you want to write a article on a out of date 13 year old subject larger than anything that was ever published. Does someone have a personal agenda? Or clearly just way to much free time. Could this time be better spent on a more deserving subject or even better our families or at least making money for them. For grown men to debate this article to death really does not help to inform or educate anyone! 72bikers (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The topic meets notability criteria, so that's why it exists. What happens on this article matters because the precedent can't be allowed to stand. We have three editors stonewalling because they won't tolerate ANY criticism of a corporations words and actions. They're proposing a balanced article should be nothing more than a credulous rewrite of the marketing press releases and published spec sheet, and the analysis and opinions expressed by expert authors have to be minimized to almost nothing. That's a huge problem, and it really doesn't matter whether it's a Pokemon article or an article on world hunger. The POV-pushing deletions of well-cited content have to be stopped. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You do realize the more you speak on this subject the more you make it sound like your personal agenda and not a fair and balanced subject. I never said it was not deserving of a article. I have read the article and what was published on this as well. It is in my opinion what is in the article is more than enough to state the facts on this subject. To add what you have done in the draft of this subjected is redundant and repetitive. The same facts over and over you have every bit of information ever written and then some on a 13 year old publicity stunt to showcase a motor dodge built! To do this only subtracts from the subject matter and only bores reader into not even finish reading the article. Why would you keep challenging these fact when so many other editors clearly disagree with you? Do you believe that you are the only one who is knowledgeable enough to know what a good article should or should not have in it? If so then please state your credentials like myself are you a motorcycle mechanic? Are you a published author of any kind? Are you a engineer of any kind? Do you hold any form of credentials or higher learning that would make your opinions more valid than someone else's? If so please do inform us so that your opinions might hold more weight. Just being someone with a lot of free time and a willingness to try and inform people does not make your opinions any more valid than anyone else and twist things to your own ends. Try stepping back and see things from all sides and not get so personally involved over the subject matter! I am reminded of a line from a movie learn to let go!72bikers (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, when other editors write War and Peace-length arguments on the talk page pushing their version, that's just fine. They're allowed to stick to their guns day after day and that's just fine. But when I do the same thing then I must have a personal agenda? How convenient.
It's false to claim every other editor supports deleting so much content from this article. Brianhe and Vintagent (that's Paul D'Orleans, author of two motorcycling history book, Cycle World columnist, expert on classic and custom bikes, etc) also agrees the comprehensive version is better.
Let's make a list of all the compromises that I and Brianhe and the Vintagent have given these guys in our version Draft:Dodge Tomahawk. Concessions given to meet them halfway:
- Removing "extraordinary claim" Done
- Removing "derided by land-speed experts" Done
- Adding stronger positive statements to the lead Done
- Expanding the background, design, fabrication, debut sections to reduce proportion of criticism Done
- Expanding positive information from many diverse sources for better balance Done
- They came in and simply nuked text, did little to no actual research or writing, and instead used the talk page to argue and argue and argue. We, Brian, Vintagent, and I, did work to address the problem and met them halfway again and again and again. We gave them everything they asked except for one thing: total censorship of all criticism.
And that's not enough. Still staring a gift horse in the mouth and refuse to accept victory. Are these guys here to build an encyclopedia or is it all just a battleground?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can find no reference to the one person with credentials you reference on this discussion. And only two references on the draft page and those to were to delete redundant or controversial information. And find it odd that you would state someone else credentials with a trivial role in this whole thing. Instead of your own as to add weight to your opinions. Am I to assume then you only have a high school diploma and neither any higher learning or trade to add any weight to your opinions? And to the other person you referenced they only marginally spoke on this subject and it is not entirely clear they sided with you. On the other hand there were what at least six or seven who disagreed with you on this entire subject. But I digress back to the subject at hand. I feel you neither took my advice on learning to let go or tried to step back and see things from all sides. Of your own words you were the soul creator of most of the content that was removed and in so felt attacked or belittled and then lashed back. And in doing so you neither helped your case or made your opinions more valid. And in truth you your self have done the same thing removed others content from a article without any discussion as if only your opinion mattered. When challenged on this state they were just cluttering a page or simple state we are not doing this as if you run or work for Wikipedia. I myself have had to go to great lengths to inform you and help you to understand on dry and wet weights when it comes to motorcycles to be able to post information without you removing it. And also on the subject of ram air you had wrote like this was just some made up thing of manufactures to sell there product."Is this just somebody hypothesizing? Did they do a dyno run inside a wind tunnel? Doesn't almost every modern sportbike use some sort of "ram air" system? And aren't we sort of left guessing about whether or not it really works?" I once again had to educate you on this. Ram air systems are designed to : get more air, and thus more fuel-air mixture, into an internal combustion engine. They represent intermediate steps between a standard naturally aspirated engine and a forced induction system, such as a turbocharger or a supercharger. Provide more performance than a conventional intake with a minimum of additional complexity. So its a way to get more in without the external parts like a turbo or like in the h2 a supercharger. Its even in cars The classic Ram-air intake is that seen on the Formula Firebird,, which consists of one or more forward facing scoops that are designed to force, or ram, more air into the intake manifold.. In many ways, this system is almost a hybrid between natural aspiration and forced induction as it compresses the air before it reaches the manifold. When tuned correctly, this option can provide a significant power increase. The biggest drawback to this system is that because it relies on the car's forward motion, it is only really effective at speeds of 40 miles per hour and above. At lower speeds, it loses most of its effectiveness as the air does not reach the scoop quickly enough to be compressed. These systems are not all created equal having a centrally located inlet on the most forward leading edge is the most efficient. As well as having the straightest rout to the air box some current model motorcycles have there's go rite through the neck also a large air box and sealed mental box like on the zx12r is better than a leaky plastic box. They first appeared on the ZX-11 model in 1992. And more show you published articles on this with testing done just to be able to post information on a article as it pertained to this. But to be honest you did help me in some areas as I was a new contributor. But there were many point you would just remove my contributions I felt just because you failed to understand the information correctly. And if I failed to enlighten you would say to just post on the talk page and get a consensus from contributing editors and when none weighed in it was if you word was law. Just curious that now even when things weigh in against you still feel like you are in the right. And only you know best or that people are out to get you or that they only disagree with you because they want to have a argument just to have a argument. My advice to you would be just to do unto others as you would have done to you. Not to take things so personally and oh ya learn to let go. 72bikers (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK, you don't know who Paul D'Orleans (The Vintagent) is. All that matters is that he's one of the three Wikipedia editors in good standing who support the draft version of the article, and so clearly there is not a strong majority in favor of the mass deletion of content. I have no idea what to say to all the armchair opinionating about the top speed. Everything that Brianhe and Vintagent and I want to add is well-sourced. That's all that matters by policy. You are entitled to your private theories as to why all the cited experts are wrong, but your novel theories and opinions have no bearing on the policy that says all significant viewpoints should be covered, per WP:UNDUE. Cycle World, Motorcycle Consumer News, Motorcyclist, Popular Science, Dave Campos and Glynn Kerr together represent an obviously significant point of view. Three or four editors don't get to censor significant points of view just because they don't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- don't put words in my mouth I never said I did not know who Paul D'Orleans (The Vintagent)is. But the fact you brought him up when asked about your credentials is questionable. And the fact that he has not commented on this talk page at all. The fact that he only made to corrections to the draft of the dodge tomahawk. And they were to delete one a duplication and the other was to remove controversial material. That's it but ok he is on your side if you say say so it must be true rite. The other thing you mention I am not sure what to make of "armchair opinionating about the top speed" is this reference to your misunderstanding of ram air?
- I can find no reference to the one person with credentials you reference on this discussion. And only two references on the draft page and those to were to delete redundant or controversial information. And find it odd that you would state someone else credentials with a trivial role in this whole thing. Instead of your own as to add weight to your opinions. Am I to assume then you only have a high school diploma and neither any higher learning or trade to add any weight to your opinions? And to the other person you referenced they only marginally spoke on this subject and it is not entirely clear they sided with you. On the other hand there were what at least six or seven who disagreed with you on this entire subject. But I digress back to the subject at hand. I feel you neither took my advice on learning to let go or tried to step back and see things from all sides. Of your own words you were the soul creator of most of the content that was removed and in so felt attacked or belittled and then lashed back. And in doing so you neither helped your case or made your opinions more valid. And in truth you your self have done the same thing removed others content from a article without any discussion as if only your opinion mattered. When challenged on this state they were just cluttering a page or simple state we are not doing this as if you run or work for Wikipedia. I myself have had to go to great lengths to inform you and help you to understand on dry and wet weights when it comes to motorcycles to be able to post information without you removing it. And also on the subject of ram air you had wrote like this was just some made up thing of manufactures to sell there product."Is this just somebody hypothesizing? Did they do a dyno run inside a wind tunnel? Doesn't almost every modern sportbike use some sort of "ram air" system? And aren't we sort of left guessing about whether or not it really works?" I once again had to educate you on this. Ram air systems are designed to : get more air, and thus more fuel-air mixture, into an internal combustion engine. They represent intermediate steps between a standard naturally aspirated engine and a forced induction system, such as a turbocharger or a supercharger. Provide more performance than a conventional intake with a minimum of additional complexity. So its a way to get more in without the external parts like a turbo or like in the h2 a supercharger. Its even in cars The classic Ram-air intake is that seen on the Formula Firebird,, which consists of one or more forward facing scoops that are designed to force, or ram, more air into the intake manifold.. In many ways, this system is almost a hybrid between natural aspiration and forced induction as it compresses the air before it reaches the manifold. When tuned correctly, this option can provide a significant power increase. The biggest drawback to this system is that because it relies on the car's forward motion, it is only really effective at speeds of 40 miles per hour and above. At lower speeds, it loses most of its effectiveness as the air does not reach the scoop quickly enough to be compressed. These systems are not all created equal having a centrally located inlet on the most forward leading edge is the most efficient. As well as having the straightest rout to the air box some current model motorcycles have there's go rite through the neck also a large air box and sealed mental box like on the zx12r is better than a leaky plastic box. They first appeared on the ZX-11 model in 1992. And more show you published articles on this with testing done just to be able to post information on a article as it pertained to this. But to be honest you did help me in some areas as I was a new contributor. But there were many point you would just remove my contributions I felt just because you failed to understand the information correctly. And if I failed to enlighten you would say to just post on the talk page and get a consensus from contributing editors and when none weighed in it was if you word was law. Just curious that now even when things weigh in against you still feel like you are in the right. And only you know best or that people are out to get you or that they only disagree with you because they want to have a argument just to have a argument. My advice to you would be just to do unto others as you would have done to you. Not to take things so personally and oh ya learn to let go. 72bikers (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did not state your reference were not well sourced. When in fact you took every bit of information ever written and copied it the draft to state and restate the same thing over and over again. Like the top speed of something that was never even ridden over parking lot speeds. And then state these are my private theories as to why all the cited experts are wrong. what am I stating they got wrong? But to have the audacity to state "your novel theories and opinions have no bearing" really? Then to state "Three or four editors don't get to censor significant points of view just because they don't like it". When in fact is was much more than that. But is it not true that you have done just this thing your self to others? You know what they say about people that live in glass houses? But again it does seem like you are taking this all to personal and just lashing out! 72bikers (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- We've been through those sources, they don't mention the speed claim upfront, usually only several paragraphs in - in the case of Cycle World, it's 21 paragraphs - and they devote very little space to the claim, averaging around 14% by my quick survey. Your attempts to include top speed as a large portion of the article, msking it seem far more important in the media than it wss, is biased use of the sources, a violation of NPOV and OR. You've been involved with this article for at least five or six years, and let it be almost entirely about top speed, now some other editors have arrived to improve it, which is the way Wikipedia works - sooner or later, every one of those millions of articles that need attention should get fixed, and right now, this one seems to be on deck. --Tsavage (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're working on the basis of a totally made-up Wikipedia policy that which paragraph a fact is found in is a reason to delete it from an article. Laughable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Balancing aspects: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." WP:BALASPS (part of WP:NPOV)
- You're working on the basis of a totally made-up Wikipedia policy that which paragraph a fact is found in is a reason to delete it from an article. Laughable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- We've been through those sources, they don't mention the speed claim upfront, usually only several paragraphs in - in the case of Cycle World, it's 21 paragraphs - and they devote very little space to the claim, averaging around 14% by my quick survey. Your attempts to include top speed as a large portion of the article, msking it seem far more important in the media than it wss, is biased use of the sources, a violation of NPOV and OR. You've been involved with this article for at least five or six years, and let it be almost entirely about top speed, now some other editors have arrived to improve it, which is the way Wikipedia works - sooner or later, every one of those millions of articles that need attention should get fixed, and right now, this one seems to be on deck. --Tsavage (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I did not state your reference were not well sourced. When in fact you took every bit of information ever written and copied it the draft to state and restate the same thing over and over again. Like the top speed of something that was never even ridden over parking lot speeds. And then state these are my private theories as to why all the cited experts are wrong. what am I stating they got wrong? But to have the audacity to state "your novel theories and opinions have no bearing" really? Then to state "Three or four editors don't get to censor significant points of view just because they don't like it". When in fact is was much more than that. But is it not true that you have done just this thing your self to others? You know what they say about people that live in glass houses? But again it does seem like you are taking this all to personal and just lashing out! 72bikers (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where in there it says anything about "delete everything past paragraph 7!" Where are you getting that from? I don't see any mention of paragraph 1 or 2 or 16 anywhere. If it was a book would we only use the first 50 pages and ignore everything past page 312? Or Perhaps 313? See, you're inventing an arbitrary standard, because you don't like it but lack any policy or guideline to justify it. The clearly expressed views of Cycle World, Motorcycle Consumer News, Motorcyclist, Popular Science, Dave Campos and Glynn Kerr are a significant point of view. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[1]"
You already got a long list of concessions to meet you halfway. What are you trying to get out of this? You got almost everything you asked for. Congratulations! Declare victory, accept a good comprise, and move on. Drop the stick! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see where in there it says anything about "delete everything past paragraph 7!" Where are you getting that from? I don't see any mention of paragraph 1 or 2 or 16 anywhere. If it was a book would we only use the first 50 pages and ignore everything past page 312? Or Perhaps 313? See, you're inventing an arbitrary standard, because you don't like it but lack any policy or guideline to justify it. The clearly expressed views of Cycle World, Motorcycle Consumer News, Motorcyclist, Popular Science, Dave Campos and Glynn Kerr are a significant point of view. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[1]"
- "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject" Design, fabrication, performance, etc, are aspects of the subject, not viewpoints. If an aspect is covered a lot in the sources, we cover it a lot here, if it is covered only a little in the sources, we do not cover it a lot here. Cycle World devoted three out of 32 paras to top speed and that appears 21 paras in - it is reasonable to call that "a little." Same case in the other feature article sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- None of that information comes from independent sources; it's merely a rehash of what Dodge claimed. Nobody tested the Tomahawk, nobody got a close inspection. Nobody witnessed the design process; we only know what Dodge chose to tell the public. You're proposing articles about motorcycles should be nothing but warmed-over press releases. Your made-up paragraph-counting yardstick is getting old. I've already told you I think it's arbitrary, and you've not found a shred of support for this 3/32 paragraphs proportionality anywhere. I've never heard of such a standard used anywhere on Wikipedia.
I don't know why you keep repeating it to me as if I'm going to give you a different answer. Brianhe and Vintagent read your repetitive assertions of the same argument ad nauseum; you failed to convince them. They support the proposed draft. So here we are. You don't need to keep beating the same dead horse. You think we should follow your made-up standard by counting paragraphs. We don't. There. You don't have clear consensus, and you've been clearly told that the current version is not stable or accepted; we've simply agreed to cease edit warring.
I'm going to finish fully expanding the draft to cover more of the design and fabrication -- which is to make you happy, a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender -- and then we shall see what we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- None of that information comes from independent sources; it's merely a rehash of what Dodge claimed. Nobody tested the Tomahawk, nobody got a close inspection. Nobody witnessed the design process; we only know what Dodge chose to tell the public. You're proposing articles about motorcycles should be nothing but warmed-over press releases. Your made-up paragraph-counting yardstick is getting old. I've already told you I think it's arbitrary, and you've not found a shred of support for this 3/32 paragraphs proportionality anywhere. I've never heard of such a standard used anywhere on Wikipedia.
- "treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject" Design, fabrication, performance, etc, are aspects of the subject, not viewpoints. If an aspect is covered a lot in the sources, we cover it a lot here, if it is covered only a little in the sources, we do not cover it a lot here. Cycle World devoted three out of 32 paras to top speed and that appears 21 paras in - it is reasonable to call that "a little." Same case in the other feature article sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you keep putting words in other peoples mouths let them speak for themselves. You do realize you sound a bit like a child ranting like as if stopping your feat or holding your breath till you get your way. And you continue to speak as if only your opinion counts what were your credentials again? you make statements of the only one to have found some publishing that stand out in some way from what is already written or referenced? There is a reason there was never much written on this subject. It was never aloud by the manufacture to be fully tested or reviewed by any one. Because they did not want to be liable for damages if some one got hurt. This is not street legal or even a real vehicle. It was just a promotional stunt by dodge to show case the engine that's it and as stated by the manufacture and by independent sources as just being rolling art. You sir are the one that is really beating a dead hoarse! 72bikers (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Right here. See the edit summary. Not everybody needs to make their point by writing 10,000 word talk page comments. You've repeated that you think this is personal to me. I've explained my motives. I've explained what my intentions are: to finish expanding the draft to better compromise and meet the demands that they made to improve the article. What else can I do for you now? May I help you? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- If I stop replying, it's not because I've accepted any of these arguments, or that the current version is stable, or that this is resolved. It's just that I don't see any point in going around in these same circles again. I'm sorry I repeated my points as many times as I did; if you guys want to keep re-posting your previous arguments, have at it by yourselves. We'll let you know when we're ready to proceed. Cheers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Going to hold just your breath then. 72bikers (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck proceeding without consensus, Dennis. Every dispute resolution step has told you that you're wrong. Are you expecting that clear consensus to change? I can't see it happening. It shows exactly how unwilling you are to compromise, when you create a draft and don't invite the editors who have different opinions to contribute towards that draft. You aren't compromising, you are creating a new version, based on your opinions, with editors you are willing to allow contribution from = not a compromise. You have lots of sources, the only problem is that basically they are all stating the same thing, and when you include them all, it completely destroys the balance of the article. The problem here is only 50% about content. The other 50% is your attitude towards this article and other editors. When you realize and accept the latter, you might find it easier to resolve some of the issues in this article. Good luck with that, it is sincere advice, not criticism. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ >>>----> This! >>>>----> The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.!!!!!! <----<<<< This! <----<<<<
1934 Plymouth Monster
Since I've been doing more research on this it's clear we can expand this article quite a bit with the sources cited above and more. Another motorcycle, worth mention here, or in a new article if more published information can be found, is another Chrysler 1,500 lb motorcycle, the 1934 Plymouth Monster [26][27][28]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Article bias: misleadingly and inaccurately presents top speed claims as only important issue
The article is currently in a seriously imbalanced state, focusing predominantly on top speed claims for this vehicle, when in fact, the Art Deco design, the sports car engine, and the enormous price tag, each figured at least as prominently in reliable source coverage. In addition, the manufacturer clearly indicated that the vehicle was a concept piece, operational but not intended to be ridden. Meanwhile, our article addresses top speed claims in the second sentence of the lead, and dedicates the entire body of the article to a single section, "Top speed." --Tsavage (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- You just created a whole new talk thread to repeat the thing you've been saying in the discussion of the same issue above. Why? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- The thread above is focused on top speed content in the lead. This is about the entire article. The lead summarizes the article. Two separate things, just closely connected as far as top speed. An easy indication of the overall bias problem is that there is more information in the lead about design, production and sales than in the article, in fact, everything about the bike other than top speed is in the lead only. Tail wagging dog. Problem in a nutshell. --Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just imagine if you devoted a fraction of the energy spent filling the talk page with words to actually writing in the missing content in the article itself. Nobody said this is a Good Article nominee; it's barely more than a stub. What do we do with stubs? We expand them. We don't talk about expanding them. Please, don't let me stop you. Find sources, write. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- The thread above is focused on top speed content in the lead. This is about the entire article. The lead summarizes the article. Two separate things, just closely connected as far as top speed. An easy indication of the overall bias problem is that there is more information in the lead about design, production and sales than in the article, in fact, everything about the bike other than top speed is in the lead only. Tail wagging dog. Problem in a nutshell. --Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- I always do. The point of this section is to alert other editors. Contentious-seeming environments in particular can deter participation. Part of collaborative editing, using Talk, is to point out problems and deficiencies so that each new editor is not starting from square one in figuring out where things stand. For my part, I've watchlisted the article, and will participate in editing and discussion as vigorously as I can. --Tsavage (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Need to clarify if the versions sold were operational
The October 14, 2013 Forbes story Dodge's New Axe said the version of the Tomahawk sold to the public was "fully road-ready", just not certified for public roads. Another story, The Tomahawk's not for riding from the New Straits Times October 12, 2003 says, "Just in case you have ideas about shredding the tyres on the weekends, the reproduction is intended for display only. It is not fully operational and cannot be legally operated on public roads. The company does not say how much of the bike is operational." I'll try to double check the other sources to clear this up.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
DRIVETIME: MOTORING: Dodge has bite of the Viper. Stewart Smith. Coventry Evening Telegraph (England) October 24, 2003 "DODGE TOMAHAWK CHRYSLER'S outrageous Viper-powered Dodge Tomahawk is to go into limited production as nothing more than a hugely-expensive ornament… It will be made by the firm that built the original as a piece of automotive sculpture and is intended for display only, as it will not be fully operational and cannot be legally driven on public roads anyway." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the word "extraordinary" in the second sentence current lede section be removed? The current wording is: “Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts inland speed records…”
Include your !votes in the Survey. Yes means to remove the adjective. No means to keep the adjective. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion.
If any editors want any other RFCs, I will try to work with them to develop neutrally worded RFCs.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- No — Only insofar as we choose any wording which communicates the consensus among all the expert sources that the claim of 300+ mph top speed was extraordinary (i.e. unlike any other manufacturer claim) or outlandish or physically impossible or hyperbolic or bullshit. Many other words would suffice. It doesn't have to be the word "extraordinary" but we can't treat this claim as plausible, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes A neutral point of view is everything to wikipedia. The moment we start using language based on our conclusions, or portraying outside opinions as fact, we might as well be writing a blog. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes See my two comments as Third Opinion above. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes "Exceptional" is an original conclusion not supported by sources. Furthermore, it is not even exceptional in a common sense estimation, as claiming a vehicle could do a million miles an hour would be, as it is readily conceivable that a speed in the 400 mph range could be achieved by a contemporary vehicle. What is being inferred is that the claim is exceptional considering the Tomahawk's design, or when compared to the current speed record, or both, and we need a reliable source to make those comparisons. --Tsavage (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like this is moot since the word doesn't appear here anymore. Current text "claims were derided by experts" looks OK to me. Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The word doesn't appear any more because Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) went ahead and deleted the word under discussion without bothering to wait for this survey to be resolved. So all this discussion is moot if it's back to edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- There already seems to be sufficient local consensus for the change, with three editors in agreement, in the relevant section above. An RfC is simply another section, with a wider call for input. We can request an administrative close at the end, to confirm a result, and we can also request exactly the same administrative close on the previous section (any section can be closed and consensus gauged, not only RfC sections). --Tsavage (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. RfC's don't work like that at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- There already seems to be sufficient local consensus for the change, with three editors in agreement, in the relevant section above. An RfC is simply another section, with a wider call for input. We can request an administrative close at the end, to confirm a result, and we can also request exactly the same administrative close on the previous section (any section can be closed and consensus gauged, not only RfC sections). --Tsavage (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes - "Extraordinary" is an unencyclopedic term. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" is a meaningless pejorative. It's equivalanet to I just don't like it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not say there are "unencyclopedic" words, and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC cites it as an excample of a fallacious argument. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, "extraordinary" is a peacock term we should avoid using. In fact, it is actually included in the list of peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a list of proscribed words. It's a list of words that are sometimes a problem when used in the context of touting the subject's merit. In this context we are stating the well-sourced fact that this claim is unprecedented, not commonly practiced, and beyond the bounds of plausibility, which our sources demonstrate in extreme detail. Zero sources argue it's plausible, meaning that to balance the scales to create 'neutrality' Wikipedia editors to put their thumbs on one side. Whichever alternative words we choose, we must communicate what the sources tell us, not some imaginary neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, using "extraordinary" to describe top speed would be "touting the subject". I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. Balance would mean not using peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The subject is the Dodge Tomahawk, which is not being touted with the word "extraordinary". It did not say the Tomahawk was extraordinary, nor did it say that the top speed was extraordinary. It said the claim of 300+ mph was what was extraordinary. Which it is, both in the sense of being physically impossible (bordering on supernatural) and in the sense of being nothing like the norm for concept vehicles, let alone production vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- In this case, using "extraordinary" to describe top speed would be "touting the subject". I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. Balance would mean not using peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's not a list of proscribed words. It's a list of words that are sometimes a problem when used in the context of touting the subject's merit. In this context we are stating the well-sourced fact that this claim is unprecedented, not commonly practiced, and beyond the bounds of plausibility, which our sources demonstrate in extreme detail. Zero sources argue it's plausible, meaning that to balance the scales to create 'neutrality' Wikipedia editors to put their thumbs on one side. Whichever alternative words we choose, we must communicate what the sources tell us, not some imaginary neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough, "extraordinary" is a peacock term we should avoid using. In fact, it is actually included in the list of peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:PEACOCK. The discussion is not moot, once it completes it will prevent any further edit warring over addition/removal of the word. “WarKosign” 08:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes the article should be npov. there was too much bs on the top speed using words like deride and extraordinary. the article is much better now. Zachlita (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Threaded Discussion
- I would be more than happy to take a neutral position on between the two points of view that the 300+ mph claim is silly or plausible if there were any credible, expert sources we could cite who argue that it is at all credible. The reason Wikipedia's voice should clearly say this is "extraordinary" or "outlandish" or what-have-you is that we only have one argument from our independent sources. There is no "controversy" because a controversy requires two or more different points of view, and one of those is missing. There is original research going on when editors, lacking any sources to support it, play Devils Advocate to prop up a point of view with no reliable, credible adherents.
The same would be true if Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could carry it's rider into outer space to the Moon. All our sources would tell us that's impossible. This is nothing like the very common practice of manufacturers exaggerating the power or performance of their products by a plausible amount. Wikipedia's WP:FALSEBALANCE section of the WP:NPOV policy says we do not give equal weight to nonsense such as the idea that the Moon landings were faked, or the conspiracy of lizard people, and so on. A good guide for this would be the Featured Article Nostradamus, whose lead says, "Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power," which is analogous to the sentence "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records." We inform the reader clearly that rational experts in the field strongly reject the paranormal/extraordinary/impossible claim. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm persuaded by Dennis's interpretation of WP:FALSEBALANCE that it's OK for us to state that press universally found the manufacturer's top speed claims ... wanting. I've removed the "weasel words" tag in the lede accordingly. – Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- And while the Nostradamus article makes clear that they are giving the opinions of outside source - the key words being "Most academic sources maintain that... " you are portraying an opinion as a fact by stating that the claim is extraordinary, rather than stating it was considered as extraordinary. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to suggest a sentence such as "Dodge's claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were disputed by experts (+ source) and have never been proven." then you might meet less opposition and it would still maintain the facts without going anywhere near implying the top speed claim was accurate or proven. This is starting to feel like WP:SNOW Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I looked for the official press release from Dodge and found various different versions all with different top speeds claimed. The quotes we had are "If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy." - which doesn't seem like the most sincere or reliable source and "Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach" this seems like a more reliable and accurate source - the guy designed the bike. So why are we still talking about 400mph claims? I guess that was the headline quote that was picked up on, and repeated everywhere and we are doing the same. When people talk about speed claims, I wanna see an official manufacturer's spec sheet, not "some guy on the dodge stand made a wild guess" or a random speed somewhere between 250 and 420mph depends on which source you go to. Without any reliability in our sources, we can't quote a claimed speed. So, I've removed the actual speed claimed from the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Ack Attack streamliner has more than 1,000 hp, more than double the Tomahawk, and a much lower drag. It set a world land speed record for motorcycles, at 394.084 mph. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- For what seems like the hundredth time - no one here is claiming that the top speed of the Tomahawk is 400+ or even 300+ mph. No one wants the article to imply that or to leave readers second guessing if that claim is possible. I'm sorry if this sounds a little personal, but for someone who has been editing for over a decade, I would expect a little more understanding of what is the issue here. There are major wikipedia rules OR/NPOV/WEASEL/SNOW that you are either totally unaware of, totally ignoring, or totally misunderstanding.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- If that's so then stop glossing over the very loud and clear statements from our sources that these claims are totally fanciful. Even plausible performance claims by manufacturers are normally treated with a grain of salt on all our other articles. When our sources tell us the claims are dubious, we have to tell the reader. You shouldn't expect understanding because you're simply wrong. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising and promotion, and we do not give equal weight to extraordinary claims that have not been accepted by independent sources. That's policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- For what seems like the hundredth time - no one here is claiming that the top speed of the Tomahawk is 400+ or even 300+ mph. No one wants the article to imply that or to leave readers second guessing if that claim is possible. I'm sorry if this sounds a little personal, but for someone who has been editing for over a decade, I would expect a little more understanding of what is the issue here. There are major wikipedia rules OR/NPOV/WEASEL/SNOW that you are either totally unaware of, totally ignoring, or totally misunderstanding.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- If claims are considered to be dubious, then put a quote. That is NPOV. I'm wondering what the Tomahawk did to upset you, I see less drama and POV pushing on articles about race, religion and abortion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- With the speed claim removed from the lead, it reads a bit like a teaser - I think either it should list what the claim was, or the whole line should be taken out so we're not leaving readers hanging about what sort of claim was being made. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can't fathom justification for downplaying the hyperbolic speed claim. The Google News Archive lists a few dozen articles that all focus on a handful of facts: the hp, the top speed, 0 to 60, and the V-10. This has to be the meat of the article because it's the meat of our source material. And WP:LEDE requires that the article lead summarize the contents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- With the speed claim removed from the lead, it reads a bit like a teaser - I think either it should list what the claim was, or the whole line should be taken out so we're not leaving readers hanging about what sort of claim was being made. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it's hard to say what the initial claim was. From different sources (that all claim to have copies of the original press release) there are different speeds stated, all attributed to Dodge. The media has been commenting on different top speeds as well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Unfortunately it's hard to say what the initial claim was"?! Utterly false. Our sources report clearly that the claim was first 420k then 400, then 300+, all of which are nonsense. I don't get how anyone can flatly deny what we can all see when we check the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Tomahawk press release
it one press release it states potential top speed of nearly 400mph - are they trying to say theoretical? and it also states 0-60 2.5 (estimated) top speed 300mph+ (also estimated) - either way, if this is a reliable source, it might makes this issue better.(or worse) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- [out of order reply] They probably computed top speed based on the power-drag formula. Try this calculator with inputs of Cd=0.50, frontal area=3 ft2, weight=1500 lbs, speed=350 mph which should put you in the 500 HP ballpark. Of course this completely ignores real-world factors like rear wheel traction, aerodynamic lift, and the tires exploding from excessive heat. Brianhe (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- On reviewing this, it's not reliable. One source puts the press release with the same text saying 420mph. One source puts the same text saying over 400mph. One says nearly 400mph. One says over 300mph. What are the comments in regards to claimed top speed in the article based on? If the claim is disputed the article could be giving incorrect figures.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dodge-tomahawk-breaking-boundaries-at-full-throttle-73679652.html http://www.carpages.co.uk/dodge/chrysler_jeep_dodge_tomahawk_part_2_09_01_03.asp http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/chrysler-shows-8300cc-v10-500-horsepower-tomahawk-concept-motorcycle--or-maybe-its-an-atv--at-detroit-auto-show/
not a press release but... http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cx_dl_1014vow.html
Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Has anyone got any idea how to locate a totally reliable copy of the original text of the press release? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Weasel words: derided by land speed experts
Brianhe: You removed a "weasel words" tag on:
- derided by experts in land speed records[3]
Your reasoning per edit summary is: not weasel words; factual description of incredulity expressed by industry press. Have you checked the source (indicated as "3" in the article)? The statement gives the impression that experts ridiculed the claim, where the source indicates that two people, the owner of the land speed record motorcycle and the rider, casually commented on the Tomahawk based on looking at some photos. Comments in the article were "dubious" and "wondered" about, which I don't think makes it to "derided" (i.e. express contempt for; ridicule). The description, "experts in land speed records" is also misleading, that refers to just two people, the indirect reference is to all of the others who speculated about the claim in the press, who in general have not been shown to have any particular expertise, let alone in land speed records.
In short, these are weasel words because they are intended to give an impression of scope and authority of opinion, when the fact is, they refer to two people casually conjecturing. --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Cycle World compares the calculations to children's "fourth-period study hall" and calls them "speculation run amok". Along with the general tone of the article I would say this is nothing but derision. – Brianhe (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Brianhe: Yes, Cycle World also does a neat 180: "Hold on. That's too harsh, especially since the Tomahawk ceases being ridiculous the instant you clap eyes on all that jewel-like stainless steel and polished aluminum - a Georg Jensen jewelry exhibit on wheels." Everyone knows the speed claim is not serious; no-one is taking this all that seriously...except we want to. --Tsavage (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've quoted Cruising Rider and Motorcyclist mocking the absurdity of the speed claim. Popular Science's tone was equally jocular. Glynn Kerr of Motorcycle Consumer News called the Tomahawk a "pointless 8.3-liter Viper-engined V10 ego trip that was a car designer's vision of what a futuristic motorcycle should look like" (March 2014, p.38-39) and said, "The 500 hp V-10 Dodge Tomahawk — You can instinctively tell when some design ideas aren't fully thought through." (April 2015. p. 40-41). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are both still drawing your own conclusions. It's a matter of weight and context. You want to place a strong statement, using a loaded word like "derided" (or mocked/scoffed at/whatever) in the second sentence of the lead, which gives the impression that the bike was primarily promoted as a fast bike, and that it was an utter joke at being so. In fact, the bike was promoted as not road-tested, not intended to be ridden, and automotive sculpture. So we first of all should not have that top speed criticism as the second sentence, and then, in the lead, we should not be overemphasizing the ridicule, which is after all from journalists who, in automotive, are in the business of creating drama and controversy where they can, to keep things interesting. All that belongs in the body.
- To reiterate, Doge called the Tomahawk "outrageous" and "sculpture." It was marketed as an over-the-top show piece, and they made no serious claim as to top speed, just that it was theoretically possible, here or on some more favorable planet. For Wikipedia to take that all so seriously, and then fixate on one aspect, top speed, and then further fixate on journalists taking the easy shot they were given, is misrepresenting the subject entirely. Do you think you would have the lead designer contradicting his employer by saying in detail, in a promotional interview, that he didn't think 400 or even 300 was possible? We can't take a publicity stunt and portray it as some serious engineering blunder or design catastrophe. Seriously?
- (As for weasel words, it's as I already said, there is no bunch of "land speed experts" deriding the bike, just two land speed record holders, the owner and his rider, being dubious while looking at photos, as a device for one writer in one publication, who happened to have a brother to call.) --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- We are not fixating. We are conforming to the picture presented by our best sources. You are choosing to accept part of what our expert sources say, but then edit out anything they tell us on the subject of the top speed for reasons you have not given. It is unacceptable to mislead readers into thinking that an unstreamlined vehicle with no more than 500 hp could conceivably approach 300 mph. It's no different than treating a claim that it could fly to the Moon as a respectable claim.
You have yet to cite even one source that we could use to support the idea that this speed claim is anything but bullshit used to generate buzz before a credulous public. Experts in the automotive, motorcycling and science media were doing a public service in debunking the nonsense claim, and Wikipedia should not try to sweep that under the rug without a justification. What is the justification for this? What's the basis? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- "You have yet to cite even one source that we could use to support the idea that this speed claim is anything but bullshit used to generate buzz before a credulous public." So? How is that relevant? I am not arguing any sort of support for the speed claim (neither is any other editor whose comments I've read here). In fact, you're only repeating what I said, that the speed claim was obvious hype, nobody tried to defend it. But you want to make it seem as if it was a serious claim, that consumers might buy the bike because it could go fast. That's clearly not the case. It is officially sculpture intended for display only. We even have the replicas being sold non-operational. And they didn't make an absolutely implausible claim, just a highly unlikely one --Tsavage (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The claim itself was highly notable. Our articles should be written in a way that reflects the priorities of our sources. If our sources put something in the headlines, the lead, the top of their stories, so should we. You're burying the fact because... because why again? What purpose is served here? That's the part I don't get. A very unusual thing happened and for some reason you want this unusual event downplayed. Why? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're going around in circles.
- The claim itself was highly notable. Our articles should be written in a way that reflects the priorities of our sources. If our sources put something in the headlines, the lead, the top of their stories, so should we. You're burying the fact because... because why again? What purpose is served here? That's the part I don't get. A very unusual thing happened and for some reason you want this unusual event downplayed. Why? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- "You have yet to cite even one source that we could use to support the idea that this speed claim is anything but bullshit used to generate buzz before a credulous public." So? How is that relevant? I am not arguing any sort of support for the speed claim (neither is any other editor whose comments I've read here). In fact, you're only repeating what I said, that the speed claim was obvious hype, nobody tried to defend it. But you want to make it seem as if it was a serious claim, that consumers might buy the bike because it could go fast. That's clearly not the case. It is officially sculpture intended for display only. We even have the replicas being sold non-operational. And they didn't make an absolutely implausible claim, just a highly unlikely one --Tsavage (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- We are not fixating. We are conforming to the picture presented by our best sources. You are choosing to accept part of what our expert sources say, but then edit out anything they tell us on the subject of the top speed for reasons you have not given. It is unacceptable to mislead readers into thinking that an unstreamlined vehicle with no more than 500 hp could conceivably approach 300 mph. It's no different than treating a claim that it could fly to the Moon as a respectable claim.
- (As for weasel words, it's as I already said, there is no bunch of "land speed experts" deriding the bike, just two land speed record holders, the owner and his rider, being dubious while looking at photos, as a device for one writer in one publication, who happened to have a brother to call.) --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- First, this section is about weasel words, your assertion that the speed claim was derided by experts in land speed records, when in fact, one journalist called his brother, who happens to be the owner of a land speed record motorcycle, and got him and the rider to speculate while looking at Tomahawk photos so he could use it in his article: "dubious" is the strongest quote in the article from their comments. The weasel words misrepresent the source.
- Second, you say, "If our sources put something in the headlines, the lead, the top of their stories, so should we" - four days ago, it was noted: "The Forbes and Popular Science articles are both quite in-depth and would together satisfy GNG on their own, and they first mention speed in the fourth and fifth paragraph in, respectively - speed is not the main lead."
- There's been no suggestion that the top speed claim and the arguments against it be excluded or buried, it just doesn't happen to be the primary claim overshadowing all else. Do a word count on the various feature-length sources and see what percentage is spent discussing top speed. You're simply trying to impose your own views, entirely contradicted by the sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was curious to see, so I did a very quick check and here is a rough coverage ratio for a few of the main sources:
- Popular Science - 4/15 paragraphs on top speed (and that's with elaboration around the writer's brother being the land speed record holder)
- Chicago Tribune - 1/21 paras on top speed: They handled it in one sentence, "Wolfgang Bernhard, Chrysler Group chief operating officer, said Tomahawk will accelerate from zero to 60 m.p.h. in 2 seconds and has a claimed top speed of 300 m.p.h.--claimed because no one has pushed the one-of-a-kind concept past 100 m.p.h."
- Cycle World - 3/32 paras on top speed, first mentioned 21 paras in
- That's hardly prime topic coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?
Another problem with this pretense that WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL are all-important is the mistaken impression that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is policy. This Manual of Style guideline is only some rules of thumb which can be applied generically to polish up the wording of articles. It is totally incorrect to read this guideline as proscribing language, telling us what words are "unencyclopedic" or making the final judgement on anything. "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language" is all it says. Calling the top speed an "exceptional claim" is clear, direct language. Saying the media derided the claim is clear and direct. The Words to Watch guideline is far less critical than the WP:FALSEBALANCE section of the WP:NPOV policy. Policy says "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." You can't violate policy in the service of a writing rule of thumb.
Credulously parroting Dodge's fanciful claims about the Tomahawk's speed, and about it's imaginary handling characteristics, violates the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy as well. You credulously repeat the claims in Popular Science about what the company hoped the novel, undeveloped suspension of the Tomahawk could do, while deleting any of Popular Science's loud and clear caveats that these dubious claims had no independent support, and that Dodge was cagey when prodded for specifics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?" I'm not, I didn't. I presented an example based on the most-used sources. Cruising Rider doesn't appear to be cited. I couldn't find a full copy of Kerr in Motorcyclist (if you have it, you can do the numbers on it) but did find the first six paragraphs excerpted - in them, there is no mention of top speed, and Kerr does frame the whole subject as not mainly about speed (just as I and others have been arguing), in the third paragraph of the article, after a build-up mentioning Democratic fundraisers and Playboy fluffers:
- "What they did is create a rid-able four-wheel motorcycle with an 8.3-liter Viper V-10 engine supplying power. It's a machine so resolutely evil, it has chunks of V-Max in its stool. Until Morton Thiokol starts building personal-use solid rocket boosters with saddles on them, the Dodge Tomahawk ranks as the ultimate bad-ass ride. The sheer outrage of the exercise is its reason for being."[29]
- Unfortunately, it seems to be, here and in at least a couple of other cases (like the unverifiable cite to quadricycle in the article, so tagged), you are presenting sources to support your argument that do not hold up when checked. --Tsavage (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?" I'm not, I didn't. I presented an example based on the most-used sources. Cruising Rider doesn't appear to be cited. I couldn't find a full copy of Kerr in Motorcyclist (if you have it, you can do the numbers on it) but did find the first six paragraphs excerpted - in them, there is no mention of top speed, and Kerr does frame the whole subject as not mainly about speed (just as I and others have been arguing), in the third paragraph of the article, after a build-up mentioning Democratic fundraisers and Playboy fluffers:
- Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?
- I was curious to see, so I did a very quick check and here is a rough coverage ratio for a few of the main sources:
(←) Dennis Bratland: The arguments against your extreme position are common sense correlated with policies and guidelines, which is how our PAGs are intended to be applied. Now you are arguing pure PAGs, what weight to give which, and so forth, while ignoring or dismissing previously stated arguments concerned with content specifics, which veers in the direction of entirely off-topic.
We can start a separate section if you want to debate "Handling" vs "Suspension" or "Handling claims" or whatever minimizing term you want to use as a subsection title. The fact is, "Handling" alone is a proper and accurate description for this group of characteristics, real or intended. We've made in the lead of the parent Performance section what the state of design vs tested reality is, and we can improve that if need be. I also adjusted the wording of the cornering statement to "designed" to do whatever. We do not want to suggest that the Tomahawk is somehow a fraudulently marketed product, by trying to shoehorn in everywhere that everything is a "claim," nothing is "real." That is, once again, a non-neutral editorial stance.
In a further appeal to common sense, applied to sources and PAGs, we have the bike being ridden up to 100mph, which is still a considerable speed for such a giant hunk of possibly hard-to-handle machinery (and there are riding videos online), so it is not as if there is zero real-world evidence of handling. --Tsavage (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland You removed the weasel words tag that has been explained in detail here and not addressed. This is the second removal of that tag, and you have reverted it. Please do not enter into revert warring. If you insist, we can take this to WP:NPOVN. --Tsavage (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Pot, kettle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
What the article could look like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spacecowboy420/sandbox
weasel words removed.. top speed claim drama moved from the lead to a more relevant section.. unsourced claims removed.. less content on speed claims to improve balance..
comments? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, this version is what one would expect given the sources we have (and this is, in fact, a well-sourced subject, with feature coverage from automotive, design, business and consumer media).
- Since we have some....statistical support as to balance of speed claim coverage in sources, I extended it to an explicit comparison:
- this article currently; 50% speed claim coverage (by word count, approx. 500/1000 wds)
- three main sources: 5%, 10%, 26% - avg. 14% - speed claim coverage (by paragraph count)
- Clearly, we are misrepresenting the importance of top speed, based on the relative importance demonstrated by the sources. Also, the journalist's claims become redundant: they are not presented as experts in mechanical engineering, automotive design, or anything like that, so it is just like listing sports commentator or film critic comments, a small, representative sample at most is warranted for an encyclopedic style of coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's more my attempt to reach a compromise. Of course there is far too much focus on the top speed claim. It deserves one or two lines at most. I will revise it to make it reflect the amount of focus on the top speed that it actually deserves. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I've trimmed it a little more. Considering the media claims about Ferrari's "test models" and the lack of coverage in the relevant articles, I think it deserves to be trimmed more. But it's a start. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Have you seen Car and Driver's write up of the Tomahawk? Less than 100 words, yet they make sure they finish with well-founded skepticism of the implausible 0-to-60 time and top speed claim. All this stuff about the suspension design and the extravagant machining of aluminum billet is Dodge's unverifiable, self-serving press release material. The independent press cared about other things: 1) the bullshit performance claims and 2) the weirdness of a car-engined motorcycle, thrown together in a in little time, and 3) what it said about Wolfgang Bernhard and DaimlerChrysler's reckless, over-the-top, no-consequences style.[30]
Listen to what the sources are trying to tell you. You can't just censor the criticism when it comes across so strongly, with no dissent. I suggest "The rise and fall of the Detroit auto show." Automobile Magazine April 2011, p. 12+ as another source that brings much-needed perspective as an antidote to the press-release PR focus on shiny metal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's all already been said, and it comes down to this: one of the sources you have prominently cited and quoted as expressing extreme skepticism over the top speed claim, opened his article on the Tomahawk, framing the subject, as follows (my emphasis):
- "What they did is create a rid-able four-wheel motorcycle with an 8.3-liter Viper V-10 engine supplying power. It's a machine so resolutely evil, it has chunks of V-Max in its stool. Until Morton Thiokol starts building personal-use solid rocket boosters with saddles on them, the Dodge Tomahawk ranks as the ultimate bad-ass ride. The sheer outrage of the exercise is its reason for being."[31]
- If that leaves any doubt that the main story is the outrageous Viper-engine-with-handlebars sculpture, and not the top speed claim, this quote from a senior Dodge manager at the time should confirm it:
- "“Could you ride it down your driveway to the mailbox and back? Yes, if you are crazy enough.”[32]
- It's all already been said, and it comes down to this: one of the sources you have prominently cited and quoted as expressing extreme skepticism over the top speed claim, opened his article on the Tomahawk, framing the subject, as follows (my emphasis):
- Of course the bike was not intended for high-speed or even normal riding, and of course we must cover the top speed and acceleration claims, including how untested they are, and how the media questioned them, all in proportion to the other aspects of the story. The most verifiably expert opinion about the speed claim that we have is the Tomahawk lead designer, saying he thought all the published claims were not possible. It really doesn't get more definitive than that, short of actual testing, and that's in the article, so it's not clear what you're arguing for. --Tsavage (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're falling for the double standard Dodge wished to be judged by, to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they asserted the Tomahawk was "real" and could really go, and on the other hand it was just a concept vehicle. Our sources called them on that. You can't have it both ways.
At the 2003 Detroit Auto Show, Ford made no specific claims about the top speed or acceleration of their 427 V-10 concept vehicle, nor did GM try to say the 1,000 hp Cadillac Sixteen could reach X mph or do 0 to 60 in Y seconds. It was extraordinary for Dodge to make such specific, implausible boasts about a mere concept vehicle. This was in some ways a bold triumph for DaimlerChrysler to have made such a crazy thing as the Tomahawk, but it was also a public embarrassment to pretend it was so fast. I can't find a shred of proof it ever went over 30 mph without crashing. Making a stable motorcycle is not easy; one does not simply attach a couple wheels to an engine and expect miracles. This is what the automotive writers wanted to tell us.
All of this is coming from our sources. We should write an article that reflects the impression left by our best sources, not the impression Dodge's senior managers would like, in retrospect, to be remembered for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're falling for the double standard Dodge wished to be judged by, to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they asserted the Tomahawk was "real" and could really go, and on the other hand it was just a concept vehicle. Our sources called them on that. You can't have it both ways.
- I disagree. We should not always come to conclusions about what writers want to tell us. When criticism is obvious, a sentence such as "the bike was criticized (by ...) for handling poorly" is much better than "the bike handled poorly" statements of fact can and should be given as facts, if they are not disputed. opinions should always be given as opinions and not implication should be given that they are facts. Besides, we can cover the disputed top speed in two or three lines at most. I think it's pretty easy for readers to work out how much credibility to give the speed claims, without devoting paragraphs to it. Besides, was the (often quoted) 420mph claim, any official Dodge performance claim? Or just some rough estimate by someone without any technical knowledge (or even an ironic joke) who happens to work for Dodge? Some background on the 420mph claim would be good, because right now I have failed to find something reliable from Dodge with a top speed claim. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- We do not leave things for readers to work out. Your intense skepticism toward certain selected facts, but not others, makes no sense, and it's blatantly biased. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course the bike was not intended for high-speed or even normal riding, and of course we must cover the top speed and acceleration claims, including how untested they are, and how the media questioned them, all in proportion to the other aspects of the story. The most verifiably expert opinion about the speed claim that we have is the Tomahawk lead designer, saying he thought all the published claims were not possible. It really doesn't get more definitive than that, short of actual testing, and that's in the article, so it's not clear what you're arguing for. --Tsavage (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk about collaboration and compromise
I separated this from the previous section, in order to keep the focus of that section, "What the article could look like ," directly on proposed revisions.
- (As a brief aside, yes, this has so far been, IMO, an admirable effort towards collaboration and compromise. It's certainly what lately I for one have been attempting, in contentious editing situations, to follow to the happy, or bitter, end. File it under: Does Wikipedia really work? :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- It shows me that there are too many rules, not enough common sense and not enough admins who are willing to come in and state policy. It would be much easier if someone with the authority to state rules and enforce them, came to the article and in 3 mins said "you can say this, but you can't say that" - but that's the price we pay for a nice fair process that is open to everyone. I guess it's probably worth it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- "I guess it's probably worth it." I absolutely agree, it's the only way this anonymous thing can work. I think what it takes is editors to actually get together on something, as we have all been doing (to a crazy extreme) here, and then, to have a more efficient, less last-resort, speedier use of formal DR measures, like formal closes (which can be done on request on ANY discussion, not just RfCs, per WP:TALK), and admins who are into making routine common sense evaluations that apply to many essentially straightforward situations. What we often have is single editors either being swarmed by small groups of editors, or the reverse, single editors able to essentially hold content hostage. We need to apply...group common sense, actively and often! A little slowly, but we are starting to apply that here, I believe/hope. :) --Tsavage (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- On an article such as this one, group common sense can certainly work. It takes time, but I can't imagine people creating sock accounts or descending into foul mouthed insults over the tone used to describe a motorbike. On the more emotional articles with groups of editors all pushing their POV, common sense might not be enough. I tend to stay away from articles that I have overly emotional feelings about, I don't really care about this silly bike, it would just be nice to help to improve the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't care about this bike, then the only reason for you to persist is for the sake of the fight. Your edit history suggests you are searching far and wide across a range unrelated topics in order to find the most inflammatory topics to incite debate over. That's going to catch up with you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I sometimes enjoy editing controversial articles. I enjoy the debate and find them far more satisfying when consensus is achieved. There is nothing wrong with that. But that has nothing to do with my edits on this article, I have a great interest in performance vehicles, which led me to this article. Focus on my edits and the article and you might find both of us enjoying our wiki-time more than if you try to make this into some silly personal drama. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- On an article such as this one, group common sense can certainly work. It takes time, but I can't imagine people creating sock accounts or descending into foul mouthed insults over the tone used to describe a motorbike. On the more emotional articles with groups of editors all pushing their POV, common sense might not be enough. I tend to stay away from articles that I have overly emotional feelings about, I don't really care about this silly bike, it would just be nice to help to improve the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring notice
Dennis Bratland: You've gone beyond discussion and bold reversion to outright edit warring by breaking the three revert rule (WP:3RR): [33], [34], [35]. In addition, your pattern of reversion goes back further, over several days. Several editors do not agree with your position, and there is a preponderance of clear evidence that you are unsupported by sources in your insistence on making the Tomahawk speed claim the most prominent aspect of this article. These three reverts within a few hours demonstrate that you are reverting to versions of a sentence that you favor, rather than following through on Talk page discussion, where your assertions have been challenged. --Tsavage (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- You've now added a fourth reversion in one 24-hour period, three of them without edit summaries: [36]. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Initially, I was reluctant to file a report regarding edit warring. I have made reverts myself, instead of discussion, so I'm less than 100% innocent. I have however tried to remain within certain limits and taken things to discussion when it seemed to be heading towards a revert cycle. The reverts made by Dennis Bratland over the last few days have breached the limits set by wikipedia and seem to be in a direct response to talk page discussions not going his way. Perhaps this is a situation in which a 3RR report is the next logical step. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dennis_Bratland_reported_by_User:Spacecowboy420_.28Result:_.29 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw that a report was filed and a warning issued. Hopefully, that helps focus the editing here on content. --Tsavage (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
i removed some stuff
looks like this was talked about lots. im an action editor so i removed the stupid stuff about speed. its not a production bike, just a concept and ornament, so the design matters, guessing a top speed dont. Zachlita (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is terribly destructive and it completely ignores the sources. Read the cited articles. Read the articles in Google News. True, normally they never make speed claims about concept vehicles, but in this case they did, and did so loudly and brashly. It's one of the things that made the Tomahawk outrageous. There was a massive reaction. The way we determine what maters is that our sources make it matter by covering it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
its ok mate, i left some of it. concept cars and bikes are about design and image not speed, especially one that is called a rolling sculpture. i dont need to read a million lines all saying the same thing about not being as fast as someone said.Zachlita (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- So again, pretty much the opposite of what we read in the sources? That's a unique point of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
nice source. is it reliable? Zachlita (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Is The Associated Press reliable? Yes, that's just the sort of discussion we should be having. It's wonderful that an experienced editor like yourself created a new account and returned to Wikipedia, so that we can engage in productive discussions like "The Associated Press? Can we cite it?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
oh we can cite it? good. can i change the article to show the top speed that your super reliable source says, please?Zachlita (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, the general mainstream press did almost all credulously report the top speed and acceleration without qualification. The specialist automotive, motorcycling and science press universally, without dissent, mocked, derided, and debunked the claims. That's the story we should tell. It's utterly unlike the Ford 427 concept, or the Cadillac Sixteen, where no claims to the vehicles being truly functional or having a specific performance were made, per normal concept cars. Dodge stuck their foot in it and that is notable. Automobile magazine remembered it a decade later as being a unique event. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
the source says over 300miles per hour, im happy you dont mind basing the article on that source. Zachlita (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Three paragraphs in a multi-topic column in the Gainseville Sun, AP or not, doesn't trump full articles in major newspapers, and business and science magazines, not to mention, specifically motorcyle mags. We have Forbes, Popular Science, Cycle World, Motorcyclist, the Chicago Tribune and others, all covering the speed claim as just one aspect of the Tomahawk, not first mentioned, and with an average coverage of around 15% of article length. You can't compare a brief blurb to a full article - we are writing an article, not a blurb.
- The balance in the current version of the article is in line with the sources. The speed claim, while noteworthy, was not the main focus in media coverage (as has been discussed every which way in the sections above) - overemphasizing it in the article misrepresents the sources. --Tsavage (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- If it were true that the majority of the coverage were on topics other than the performance claims, you could use all that coverage to expand the other parts of the article and get the balance you seek. Why don't you just do that? Wholesale deletion of critical response is only necessary on BLPs. For regular topics you just fix it. This deletion strategy is not acceptable.Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Tsavage is on point here, I think, in asking what it is about the Tomahawk that the reliable sources say makes it notable and how that should be reflected in the article. This should be especially weighted towards its notability in the enduring record and not just at or about the time of its announcement. In this sense Dennis' comment about Automobile's 10-year retrospective seems especially important. Can we look at it from this perspective? I haven't exhaustively read all the sources, but three things do seem to stand out. One, it was a deliberately provocative mis-engineered application of a 10-cylinder muscle car motor. Two, it had an "unusual" to say the least wheel layout and may or may not even be classified as a motorcycle. Three, the top speed claims and the fact that they were never backed up with any testing whatsoever (did Dodge even demonstrate that the machine was rideable?). – Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Brianhe: "what it is about the Tomahawk that the reliable sources say makes it notable and how that should be reflected in the article" isn't really what I said, we're not looking to define which individual details made the bike notable (it's already notable because it was well-covered in reliable sources, per WP:GNG), we're just looking to see overall what relative importance the sources give to various aspects of the bike.
- "This should be especially weighted towards its notability in the enduring record and not just at or about the time of its announcement" Not sure what that means. The basic facts about the bike - specifications, design and fabrication details, and the like - do not change over time, and that is primarily what we are looking to neutrally present in the article. If opinions about it have changed, and we have sources for that (I couldn't find the Automobile article you mention), then a "Legacy" or "Critical reaction" section or something similar would perhaps be warranted. If we even had reliable sources saying that Dodge was being irresponsible, or deliberately misleading, or fraudulent, or tacky, or any other comment directly about the fact that they made such a claim, that could be noteworthy. Otherwise, the article should present the facts and leave the interpretation of how they add up to the reader (WP:NPOV).
- We have the speed claims, and the fact that the bike was presented as untested sculpture, intended for display not riding, and the lead designer saying that he did not believe the claims were possible. Adding to that several paragraphs of journalistic speculation about the reasons why the speed claims are unlikely ("no fairing," "poor aerodynamics," "not enough wheelbase," "poor front suspension," and so on) does not add anything factual to the article, and does create the impression that coverage was mainly about the speed claim, when analysis of the four main sources shows that coverage averaged about 14%. --Tsavage (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The basic facts about the bike, specifications, design and fabrication details, comes entirely from press releases. You're arguing that Wikipedia exists to parrot the company line on their products, and everything else has to be minimized and subjected to the greatest possible skepticism. WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTCATALOG make clear we don't do this: " Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The commentary from independent sources is the very thing that tells us it's worthy of inclusion. Not merely a list of claimed specifications that censors the numerous expert objections to those claims.
You've got it completely backwards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- You've misrepresented and quoted out of context the wrong policy item, WP:NOTCATALOG says in its entirety:
- "Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."
- You should be working instead with WP:BALASPS:
- "Balancing aspects. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.
- That policy applies. --Tsavage (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- You've misrepresented and quoted out of context the wrong policy item, WP:NOTCATALOG says in its entirety:
- The basic facts about the bike, specifications, design and fabrication details, comes entirely from press releases. You're arguing that Wikipedia exists to parrot the company line on their products, and everything else has to be minimized and subjected to the greatest possible skepticism. WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTCATALOG make clear we don't do this: " Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The commentary from independent sources is the very thing that tells us it's worthy of inclusion. Not merely a list of claimed specifications that censors the numerous expert objections to those claims.
- We have the speed claims, and the fact that the bike was presented as untested sculpture, intended for display not riding, and the lead designer saying that he did not believe the claims were possible. Adding to that several paragraphs of journalistic speculation about the reasons why the speed claims are unlikely ("no fairing," "poor aerodynamics," "not enough wheelbase," "poor front suspension," and so on) does not add anything factual to the article, and does create the impression that coverage was mainly about the speed claim, when analysis of the four main sources shows that coverage averaged about 14%. --Tsavage (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
so for all the people involved. how much of the article do you think should be spent talking about the speed claims? I think about 10-15% what do others think?Zachlita (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is no guideline or policy that places limits on topics that way. You're saying if you can't come up with enough words to write about how shiny the aluminum is and how cool the suspension works, then we're not allowed to fully explain why and how experts found flaws with the thing. There are a number of different approaches to criticism, reviewed in Wikipedia:Criticism, but this isn't one of them. The most defensible way you could bring balance to the article is to write more about the things you think the article should say. Our sources give us what we can write about: if you got the sourcing to cover something, then that's how much you can write about it. Deleting all the criticism is never going to stand. The core policy of Neutral point of view is never going to allow such an approach. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't criticism, it's conjecture about an entirely undefended (in fact, downgraded and implicitly questioned) claim. Dodge claimed X, and the fact that it was an unlikely and untested claim, coming first from Dodge itself, was duly noted in the media. Journalists weren't criticizing the announcement, they were adding theories of why the claim was unlikely - how is including the engineering predictions of automotive writers by the paragraph load relevant, useful, or balanced coverage? It's not.
- Also, included quotes about the same thing from multiple sources, at length, is redundant, and encouraging similar redundancy elsewhere to create "balance" is not consistent with concise, readable articles.
- Also, emphasizing the most extreme journalistic speculation is itself non-neutral: adding color is part of the job of specialty journalists, publications like Cycle World and Popular Science obviously wanted to include lavish layouts of Tomahawk centerfold photos, and needed text to go with it, as non-fluffy as possible. Our news sources, like Forbes and Chicago Tribune, don't enter into that hype speculation, they just report the facts. So we would be giving the impression that there was a big, serious kerfuffle over the speed claim, when the same writets in the same article's were also drooling over the bike's concept and appearance (as I illustrated with excerpts earlier) - are we to include paragraphs of drool to create balance? No. --Tsavage (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
oh come on Dennis, it was a simple question meant to get a compromise and deserved a simple answer. you have an opinion that all the other editors apart from your mate Brianhe disagree with. You are dragging this out far too much. have some respect for the other editors and wikipedia, cos right now youre fighting a lost cause and wasting everyones time. Zachlita (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, apart from reasonable adjustment, I think the speed claim coverage in the current version is balanced and accurate. There's more info on design and fabrication to be included, and acceleration should be mentioned, also, possibly a "Legacy" section if there is enough well-sourced more recent commentary (there is at least a small amount). Finally, there's an argument for a brief "Critical reception" section, considering the promotional nature of the machine, some of the comments about appearance and other aspects in the media, and the fact that there's no test drive reviews. Overall, unless new sources and material are found, the article seems otherwise roughly in balance and consistent with sources. --Tsavage (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The current version is a POV-pushing whitewash. It is almost all promotional in tone and violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. "Written like a press release" is the tag. It cannot be allowed to remain without fully summarizing the numerous criticisms of the Tomahawk, and Dodge's behavior.
The question of limiting the criticism to 10-15%, or any other number, is a non-starter. WP:UNDUE doesn't in any way allow this, and you'll find zero articles on Wikipedia where an editor is told, "No, stop, you can't add that because on this article no more than 17% of the words can be criticism. That is never done.
Just go write the material you think should be written to cover the other aspects. If you can't write a proportionate amount, then your assertion that the sources mostly cover topics other than the bogus performance claims is proven false. You say most of the coverage is not about that, then prove it. WP:UNDUE spells it out for you: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There's a footnote right there that speaks directly to what your group is attempting: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." And " Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." The Flat Earth concept in this case equates to anyone who thinks Dodge was not egregiously bullshitting.
Please go and carefully read WP:UNDUE.
The policy couldn't be more clear on this, but let me add another way of understanding the right way to handle criticism: look at the two Featured Articles we have on commercial automobiles: Holden Commodore (VE) and Talbot Tagora. The Commodore article contains very little criticism, just about 5 sentences about the compact spare tire and no air conditioning. I think, in spite of the FA status, that more criticism should be included, but this was a very successful model line that generally received accolades from the automotive press. Talbot Tagora, on the other hand, is 2366 words long, and 1040 of those are devoted to criticism. This car was a "showroom flop", and so you would expect a signficant part of the article should be about its failure. The point is that anywhere from near zero to some 45% of an article representing "Wikipedia's best content" can be criticism. It really depends on what your sources give you. If you read about the Tagora, you're going to be reading about why it didn't sell, because that was what made an impact. If you read about the Tomahawk, you're going to read about three things: Dodge made a V-10 motorcycle (WTF!), it successfully created hype around the Dodge Viper, and the performance claims were roundly debunked. It's totally fine for 40 to 50% of an article to be criticism, or analysis of what went wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The current version is a POV-pushing whitewash. It is almost all promotional in tone and violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. "Written like a press release" is the tag. It cannot be allowed to remain without fully summarizing the numerous criticisms of the Tomahawk, and Dodge's behavior.
from your point of view its unlucky that no one agrees with you and that current consensus supports an article with far less focus on top speed claims. from looking at the discussion page, its clear to see that every dispute resolution option has disagreed with your point of view and so has every other editor. we have a stable article now, time to walk away and waste less time on this and more time on other articles.Zachlita (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Every single statement you've just made is false, which anyone can see. So of course, the answer is no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
then keep on reverting.i see an article ban in your future.Zachlita (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
article stability
It is very nice to see that we finally have a stable and balance article. It's unfortunate that it took the article being locked to achieve it, but it has the desired effect. I suggest that all major/controversial changes to the current version of the article are dealt with on the article talk page, requiring clear consensus. Thanks to everyone involved in making this a balance article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The page is fully protected until tomorrow due to edit warring. That is not in anyway "stable". You do not have consensus for deleting all commentary and criticism from the article, turning it into a promotional press release. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is a well-discussed local consensus among several editors holding essentially the same opinion about relative balance of the top speed claim coverage, and the currently locked version of the article appears consistent with that view. --Tsavage (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since the content was continually disputed and reverted, and continues to be disputed, there is no consensus here. That's part of the reason why the article was locked. – Brianhe (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think that WP:SNOW pretty much covers the single editor that has issues with the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not true. I have issues too, so that makes two of us. There's some new text on the way concerning reactions/criticism that's been contributed by a third. – Brianhe (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then I hope it comes soon, it would be good to keep the discussion flowing, rather than get back to some silly edit and revert cycle. 11:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)
- Not true. I have issues too, so that makes two of us. There's some new text on the way concerning reactions/criticism that's been contributed by a third. – Brianhe (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is a well-discussed local consensus among several editors holding essentially the same opinion about relative balance of the top speed claim coverage, and the currently locked version of the article appears consistent with that view. --Tsavage (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Brianhe: Intriguing, because I can't imagine what new material may be out there, or novel and compelling take on what material exists now.
- Correction: "WP:CONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since the content was continually disputed and reverted, and continues to be disputed, there is no consensus here." That is a misapplication of WP:CONSENSUS. The excerpt, under "Reaching consensus through editing," describes implicit consensus for routine, unchallenged edits. When edits are challenged, "Reaching consensus through discussion" applies, and we have discussed at length and arrived at what appears to be consensus. A formal close for the discussion wasn't requested, because it wasn't clear that the dissenting editor would not respect the views of several opposing editors, and would instead escalate to outright edit warring. Please be clear on policies and guidelines before citing them, in order to avoid confusion and muddying the content issues. --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to know what changes would have been made had the page not been locked, you can see them at Draft:Dodge Tomahawk. Brianhe (talk · contribs), Vintagent (talk · contribs) (support expressed in this edit summary) and I have been working to write a comprehensive version of how the article should look. You'll note that it actually contains quite a bit more positive commentary on the Tomahawk than before, without soft-pedaling the truth about the speed claims. Once the design and fabrication sections are fully expanded, and mention is made of Wolfgang Bernhard's grand entrance at the Detroit show, it's practically a Good Article. So there's three editors who don't support your censored version, and I don't see anything in AdventurousSquirrel (talk · contribs)'s comments above that suggest he's with you either. There is no consensus supporting the mass deletions of content.
We have a very fine article ready to go and then we can put this behind us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to know what changes would have been made had the page not been locked, you can see them at Draft:Dodge Tomahawk. Brianhe (talk · contribs), Vintagent (talk · contribs) (support expressed in this edit summary) and I have been working to write a comprehensive version of how the article should look. You'll note that it actually contains quite a bit more positive commentary on the Tomahawk than before, without soft-pedaling the truth about the speed claims. Once the design and fabrication sections are fully expanded, and mention is made of Wolfgang Bernhard's grand entrance at the Detroit show, it's practically a Good Article. So there's three editors who don't support your censored version, and I don't see anything in AdventurousSquirrel (talk · contribs)'s comments above that suggest he's with you either. There is no consensus supporting the mass deletions of content.
- Correction: "WP:CONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since the content was continually disputed and reverted, and continues to be disputed, there is no consensus here." That is a misapplication of WP:CONSENSUS. The excerpt, under "Reaching consensus through editing," describes implicit consensus for routine, unchallenged edits. When edits are challenged, "Reaching consensus through discussion" applies, and we have discussed at length and arrived at what appears to be consensus. A formal close for the discussion wasn't requested, because it wasn't clear that the dissenting editor would not respect the views of several opposing editors, and would instead escalate to outright edit warring. Please be clear on policies and guidelines before citing them, in order to avoid confusion and muddying the content issues. --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Draft:Dodge Tomahawk seems fine to me, up to the third paragraph of the "Top speed" section, and from there on, each paragraph should be examined, most importantly for verifiability, neutrality, and original research, also for redundancy and overall readability. There is some interesting new information, like the Kerr review, and results from the NYT' picks of the 2003 Detroit show survey, but much of those 1200/2600 words is a lot of the same overemphasizing of the speed claim commentary. It's not only an issue of balance, it's now the often redundant, non-summary style writing that is tedious to read, and gives the impression that overall response to the Tomahawk was quite massive, when in fact, it was not - it was a publicity project on a fairly grand scale, and was duly noted as such. -Tsavage (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have multiple sources that call it things like "the most talked about debut" at the Show, along with "most memorable debut". The crazy top speed, along with the motorcycle-ness, and the impracticality, were the reasons for that huge buzz. Because it's near the end of the article, we can assume that only readers who really care about the Tomahawk would even keep reading that long. Most people will read the lead and the specs, and maybe skim a little down and then stop. Readers who want more can get more; the "more" consists mostly of detailed discussion on of the plausibility of it's performance. So every kind of reader is well-served.
As far as proportion, it will look a bit different when another 10-20 sentences are added to the Design and Fabrication sections. But in the end you have to admit that we're milking every bit of non-performance criticism content we can from the sources. The simple fact is that our sources don't give us the balance point you want to see; our sources give us some basic details about the vehicle's design, construction, and functioning, and then a lot of detail on "can it do what they say it can do"? Plus a lot of detail on why big corporations do these crazy (and canny?) projects. Stay tuned and I think we can have an article we agree on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have multiple sources that call it things like "the most talked about debut" at the Show, along with "most memorable debut". The crazy top speed, along with the motorcycle-ness, and the impracticality, were the reasons for that huge buzz. Because it's near the end of the article, we can assume that only readers who really care about the Tomahawk would even keep reading that long. Most people will read the lead and the specs, and maybe skim a little down and then stop. Readers who want more can get more; the "more" consists mostly of detailed discussion on of the plausibility of it's performance. So every kind of reader is well-served.
- Draft:Dodge Tomahawk seems fine to me, up to the third paragraph of the "Top speed" section, and from there on, each paragraph should be examined, most importantly for verifiability, neutrality, and original research, also for redundancy and overall readability. There is some interesting new information, like the Kerr review, and results from the NYT' picks of the 2003 Detroit show survey, but much of those 1200/2600 words is a lot of the same overemphasizing of the speed claim commentary. It's not only an issue of balance, it's now the often redundant, non-summary style writing that is tedious to read, and gives the impression that overall response to the Tomahawk was quite massive, when in fact, it was not - it was a publicity project on a fairly grand scale, and was duly noted as such. -Tsavage (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The bottom line is, you are still attempting to insert extremely detailed coverage of the top speed claim, yet there isn't a single in-depth source that gives that aspect of the Tomahawk any sort of major prominence. And your proposed content is mainly reviewers guessing about what they saw in photos, or at an auto show.
- Also, I have concerns over the use of sources. I found a problem with literally the first item I randomly checked:
- "GM designer and automotive columnist Robert Cumberford agreed that leaving consumers disappointed is a risk, noting that the public loved the Range Stormer concept, creating a panic at Land Rover when they had nothing as "zoomy" to sell.[37]"
- Not only is that bit of padding wildly off topic, Cumberford isn't even referring to the Tomahawk, it is a general comment in a chapter on concept cars, "The Concept-Car Concept." The Tomahawk is mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier, with the entire description:
- One of the more outrageous of recent concept "cars" was the 500-hp Dodge Tomahawk V10 motorcycle introduced at the Detroit show in 2003. As a usable vehicle, it was essentially worthless.
- Once again, in a new source you've brought in (and misused), the focus on the Tomahawk is clear: it's an over-the-top concept, realized as extreme eye candy that you drool over, but don't actually ride - top speed isn't even mentioned.
- There was no big, overriding top speed controversy; Wikipedia can't manufacture one. --Tsavage (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is utterly false to accuse me of "manufacturing" the debunking of the top speed claim; it's a well-cited fact. And "there isn't a single in-depth source that gives that aspect of the Tomahawk any sort of major prominence"??? Yes, there are several, and I've repeatedly cited them. I've repeatedly cited that WP:UNDUE clearly shows that we need to give significant attention to these several articles that do give it major prominence. You're going to go on denying these articles say what they say, and I don't know what to do about that except remind you that at least two others besides me think you're wrong (The Vintagent is a published motorcycling author and columnist, Brianhe is a highly respected Wikipedian), and if that's not enough, then we need to move on to further dispute resolution.
This is not a WP:BLP and the idea that we urgently need to delete this potentially damaging, 12-year-old content about a company, not a person, and a company that doesn't even exist as DaimlerChrysler any more, is unjustified. There are a number of books aimed at children and juveniles that credulously repeat the nonsense claims: [38][39][40], and we should go the full distance to show that those old nonsense press releases were totally debunked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is utterly false to accuse me of "manufacturing" the debunking of the top speed claim; it's a well-cited fact. And "there isn't a single in-depth source that gives that aspect of the Tomahawk any sort of major prominence"??? Yes, there are several, and I've repeatedly cited them. I've repeatedly cited that WP:UNDUE clearly shows that we need to give significant attention to these several articles that do give it major prominence. You're going to go on denying these articles say what they say, and I don't know what to do about that except remind you that at least two others besides me think you're wrong (The Vintagent is a published motorcycling author and columnist, Brianhe is a highly respected Wikipedian), and if that's not enough, then we need to move on to further dispute resolution.
- There was no big, overriding top speed controversy; Wikipedia can't manufacture one. --Tsavage (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- The top speed section should contain the following:
- COO Wolfgang Bernhard said in 2003 that no one had ridden the Tomahawk faster than 100 mph (160 km/h).
- Speculation about the Tomahawk's top speed came from the media, and within DaimlerChrysler. One Dodge representative said, "If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy, while another stated "this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio works out to 420mph" Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach.
It is disputed that there was an actual official factory claim for 420mph. The whining about not having the aero is unrequired, Dodge already stated exactly the same thing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Spacecowboy420's draft text regarding speed claims, it imo accurately frames the situation and balances the top speed aspect in relation to the rest of the coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
|
was 420mph ever claimed?
I started looked at the sources a little more closely and found the reference to 420mph. "this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio without factoring in aero drag works out to 420mph" [1] so all of the comments regarding 420mph and the bike not having fairing etc etc seems to be pretty redundant. As per that source, Dodge already stated that 420mph was based purely on gearing and power and that they were aware drag would be a factor in the actual top speed being lower.
It really seems as if the media jumped all over one number given by one man, without reporting it fully and in context. All sources whining that the bike doesn't have the aero to hit 420mph are irrelevant as Dodge made that clear when giving the 420mph number. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are other sources besides that one, for example Motorcycle Consumer News said the press sheet listed both 300 and 420 on the same page, no mention of the drag disclaimer. We have other sources that quote Walters: "If it were geared properly, 250 mph would be attainable," Walters says. "But right now, it's geared for acceleration, not speed." So maybe some of the time Dodge claimed it was "geared for 420" but the one guy who seems to be truthful, Walters, says no it wasn't, it wasn't even geared high enough to reach 250.
It's probably true that Dodge did sometimes use some kind of "not counting drag" disclaimer, but they also sometimes threw 420 out there with no qualifications. Sometimes other numbers, like 300.
Dodge and the other DaimlerChrysler spinners didn't care if they were lying or telling the truth -- classical bullshit. To them it was all just hand waving. We have some sources who didn't care either, and other sources who chose to treat a supposedly reputable corporation as meaning what the say and debunking their claims. I've already pointed out that some weak source were truly duped and perpetuated the myth. There's cheesy websites[42][43] all over that keep it alive. WP:UNDUE still dictates that we cover this issue. There's no policy reason why we have to censor out any of the known facts about how and why 420 (and 300) are impossible.
I think the burden is on you to cite any sources who criticized Cycle World, Motorcyclist, Motorcycle Consumer News, Car and Driver, or Popular Science for their skepticism. Your opinions that it "didn't matter", or that "nobody cared" or that it was "whining" or that dodge never made the claim are all original research. You're taking consistent, well founded, facts with strong professional consensus and fabricating your own made up argument against them, violating WP:YESPOV. You need sources for that, not your novel theories. We should write an article that communicates what's in the sources, and leave out your personal opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you think it's ok to ignore the parts of your sources, when they don't give the facts you want to put on the article... Personally, the 420mph reference with the fact that aero had to be considered was highly relevant. But, you are more concerned with shouting "Dodge, liar liar pants on fire" than anything else at this point. Sorry, it's pretty difficult to assume good faith about any of your edits or comments right now. Just put the draft on here when you think it's perfect, and I shall give an unbiased opinion and let wikipedia procedures deal with getting consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Shouting? Incorrect. Another false accusation. I'm the one who researched and wrote a significant amount of content that explained that the Tomahawk was an important and successful exercise in public relations and branding, and was respected and admired by many of Dodge's corporate peers, while you've done little more than delete well-cited content and fill talk pages with hundreds and hundreds of words of pure, unsourced opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, if you think it's ok to ignore the parts of your sources, when they don't give the facts you want to put on the article... Personally, the 420mph reference with the fact that aero had to be considered was highly relevant. But, you are more concerned with shouting "Dodge, liar liar pants on fire" than anything else at this point. Sorry, it's pretty difficult to assume good faith about any of your edits or comments right now. Just put the draft on here when you think it's perfect, and I shall give an unbiased opinion and let wikipedia procedures deal with getting consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the entire Cycle World paragraph on top speed claims:
- "At the unveiling, DaimlerChrysler dignitaries resembled high school juniors in Mrs. Grinder's fourth-period study hall, conjuring all manner of performance possibilities. Zero to 50 mph n 2.5 seconds, they eagerly reckoned-1.4 seconds quicker than the Viper. Top speed? Well, here the speculation ran amok. "This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring in aero drag, works out to 420 mph," theorized one Chrysler rep. Offered another, "If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy."Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).
It seems pretty clear that top speed was not an official figure, at least at the time of the Detroit show. when company execs are casually speculating to reporters. Combine that with lead designer Walters openly stating that he thought, with adjustments, the bike could do 250 mph, and there is really no evidence that Dodge made any serious hard claim about top speed. Therefore, to cover at length a handful of journalists guessing about why this non-claim claim isn't possible, misrepresents the situation.
To cover this in more depth, we should be emphasizing the casualness of the claim - "Dodge execs speculated... 400, 420, 300, 250" - along with the fact that the bike was intended for display only, not road-tested, and not driven over 35 or 100 mph or whatever we have from sources. This would seem like the proper framing, and makes the speed situation abundantly clear, and this is accomplished with Spacecowboy420's draft from the previous Talk thread:
COO Wolfgang Bernhard said in 2003 that no one had ridden the Tomahawk faster than 100 mph (160 km/h). Speculation about the Tomahawk's top speed came from the media, and within DaimlerChrysler. One Dodge representative said, "If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy, while another stated "this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio works out to 420mph" Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach.
I agree with this editorial approach, and it satisfies policy at WP:BALASPS. --Tsavage (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Not an official figure"? What exactly do you mean by "official"? Company officers said it, and they published it. Zero sources call it "unofficial" or any other "just kidding" qualifier. Multiple sources explicitly say the company was guilty of "spin", "hype", and other media-manipulation/bullshit. Some sources think that wasn't such a bad thing, others find it obnoxious. We give both plenty of room at the bottom of the article to say their piece. Please stop making up novel arguments and unpublished hypotheses in order to downplay sources that don't approve of the company's behavior.
If you have any sources that contradict the speed debunkers, cite them. All this armchair speculation (Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat) is original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think it all depends on our intentions as editors. I'm not 100% familiar with all the wikipedia rules regarding content etc, I'm just approaching this with common sense and the desire to make something suitable for an encyclopedia.
- The "If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy" claim was clear speculation and not an official Dodge statement. For the purposes of making a tabloid style publication, it's an interesting quote for the sensationalism factor, but for the purposes of informing readers of relevant facts, it's pretty useless, unless you really feel a need to inform readers that some unnamed person, made a silly claim.
- The "This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring in aero drag, works out to 420 mph," is much more relevant. It's a calculated figure and accepts the aero factor in top speeds. It informs readers.
- "Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach" is even better. It has a name for the source. It notes that top speed was not a design priority, but gives a possible top speed, and the fact that gearing would need to be changed.
- I'm sure it is possible to find sources to support various different claims and statements regarding top speed claims on this bike and I'm sure you can include them just to prove a point. It won't help the article at all, all it will do is make a biased article that is focused on some ambiguous speed claims.
- It is also possible to find sources stating 420mph as an actually serious and legit top speed claim, and possible to find sources that don't debunk the top speed claims. If I include a source stating the bike will hit 300mph/400mph/420mph can that be included? With the ambiguous and varied nature of the top speed claims, and the fact that these claims have not been proven nor have they been disproven, all the sources that take the 300/400/420mph speed claims as accurate, are just as valid sources as those that doubt those claims. If you just think that because a source exists, we can included it, we can end up with a 40 paragraph section just on sources that accept and deny the various speed claims. Of course, I wouldn't do that, because it wouldn't benefit the article - but it just goes to show how you can totally destroy an article by including every dumb source that supports a certain POV.
- I think it all comes down to why you are editing this article. If you're here to push a certain POV, or to prove a point and "win" an edit war - then it makes sense to include every source you can to support your claims. If you're here to make a balanced and neutral article for people to read, then understanding that just because a source exists, doesn't mean it will help the article, is a good thing to consider. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here are some copies of a press release: [44] (short version), longer version with full specs: [45] (html errors) [46] (looks complete). Note the dual claims "The 500-horsepower Viper V-10 engine powering the dual rear wheels gives this radical vehicle a potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour - for anyone who wants to test it." AND "Top Speed: 300+ mph (est.)" just as Glynn Kerr pointed out. There's nothing here indicating Dodge considered these speeds to be "unofficial" or "just kidding". "Potential" does not mean, "any silly number we want make up and you can't call us liars". It's false to say "the media jumped all over one number given by one man, without reporting it fully and in context." It's false to say Dodge was claiming this was only drive ratio without drag; they made no such disclaimer in their official press release. The assertion that Dodge was making clear that they didn't really mean it is a fabrication, original research.
Instead we have our sources: Dodge asserted 300+ and they asserted a "potential" of up to 400 mph. they also said "It is both a sculpture that can be ridden, as well as a bold statement about the Chrysler Group's enthusiast culture and passion for design" which doesn't clarify much. They said it can be ridden. They said the top speeds of 300-400 were possible. Other sources got the number 420 mph, also from Dodge.
And we have source after source after source that took their words at face value and provided a realistic analysis. There is zero reason why any of that should be censored from the article, other than reasons invented by Wikipedia editors having no basis in our sources. This should be a very easy article to write: just tell the reader what is in our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here is video at Motor Trend of Wolfgang Bernhard actually presenting the Tomahawk at the 2003 show in his Johnny Strabler getup. Note he says "lets talk about the real thing performance: 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds! [laughter] …it theoretically it tops out at 300 mph [laughter]". No "unofficial" qualifiers. No "just kidding". Just "theoretical". Again, nothing here to suggest it's out of bounds for Wikipedia to cite the numerous sources that proved this "theoretical 300+ mph" was far, far beyond the bounds of credibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- And into the laughter, he says, "OK, we haven't done that yet, but, we'll do that, sometime." [more laughter] Hardly a serious claim from a guy promoting a bike that is supposed to actually go fast, as you would have it. How it looks and sounds, and that he actually rode it onto the stage (that must've been at least 3 mph), is obviously the main focus, which is what everyone else here has been saying. --Tsavage (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's some grasping at straws right there. "Wikipedia should erase all mention of this because the crowd in this video laughed." This double standard, subjecting this speed issue to such intense skepticism, while credulously accepting everything else Dodge claimed without looking twice, is tendentious editing. It would have helped your invented idea of this being "not serious" or "unofficial" if even once, anyone from Dodge had replied to the chorus of debunking by actually saying, ever, "we were not serious. It's unofficial". They never said any such thing. You guys put those words in their mouth. You guys made that up.
We should simply convey what's in the sources and not try to play Devil's Advocate for what you think Dodge intended. We can't read their minds but we know what they said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's some grasping at straws right there. "Wikipedia should erase all mention of this because the crowd in this video laughed." This double standard, subjecting this speed issue to such intense skepticism, while credulously accepting everything else Dodge claimed without looking twice, is tendentious editing. It would have helped your invented idea of this being "not serious" or "unofficial" if even once, anyone from Dodge had replied to the chorus of debunking by actually saying, ever, "we were not serious. It's unofficial". They never said any such thing. You guys put those words in their mouth. You guys made that up.
- And into the laughter, he says, "OK, we haven't done that yet, but, we'll do that, sometime." [more laughter] Hardly a serious claim from a guy promoting a bike that is supposed to actually go fast, as you would have it. How it looks and sounds, and that he actually rode it onto the stage (that must've been at least 3 mph), is obviously the main focus, which is what everyone else here has been saying. --Tsavage (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- In 2006 [47] and 2009 they repeated the claim "potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour". They never tried to walk that back. Why would they do that if it is "hardly a serious claim"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Am I the only one to read this whole talk page. Because back in 2011 dennis wrote this. The idea that the Dodge Tomahawk could to over 400 mph is patently absurd, as explained in Popular Science. Unreliable sites, mostly anonymous blogs laden with ads, like http://www.exoticcars.ws/dodge-tomahawk/, or WP:USERGENERATED sites like http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_speed_of_dodge_tomahawk are incorrect when they say that Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could go 400 or 420 mph. Dodge first announced a speed of 420 mph, then later revised that down to a much lower, but equally laughable, 300 mph. In reality, the Tomahawk has not been verified to be mobile at all. Dodge admits the Tomahawk is a sculpture, not a vehicle. There is no evidence you could ride it through a parking lot at 5 mph. Dodge shipped them in an unrideble condition, allowed nobody to test them, and did not make good on their promise to bring a Tomahawk to Bonneville for a speed trial.
Please do not add any more misleading information to this article. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and only cite reliable, verifiable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
But now he has a view that is 180 to what he has stated in the past. As if all these performance numbers are all legit and were to be taken seriously? Like this was a actual vehicle meant to be ridden! Note I state vehicle and not a motorcycle this is not a motorcycle at best it was stated it was motorcycle like. By definition a motorcycle is a vehicle with only two wheels. You hint strongly in that draft as to this being a motorcycle. Also why does he keep stating that 3 people worked on the draft? It was mostly him with one other adding a small amount and the third he claims the guy who is a author just did two little things to the draft. One was to remove duplication and the other was to remove what might be construed as controversial so he did not add anything only took away. But I feel he includes him to just add weight to his argument clearly . And if you really want to add him to it why would you not listen to him. You have that huge draft page written up with nothing but duplicate and controversial information. Truly what sense does that make? Why would you spend all that time and effort on making a page for a 13 year old promotional stunt to just show case a motor? Is there really that much interest in this subject matter? Or is this just from you being challenged on what you can or cannot add to page? And now somehow feel threatened of your self worth or your "power"! I really feel you need to step back from this and take a good hard look at all sides and within. 72bikers (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
big difference between potential top speed and actual top speed. I am a potential F1 champion, world leader and rock god. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- It's obvious that the top speed figures listed for this concept vehicle are completely untested and their provenance seems to be almost entirely hypothetical, and strictly speaking, entirely implausible - and therefore it probably wouldn't be a terrible thing to allow some space for a summary of the opinions of experts looking into these claims to explain how they're impossible for the exact iteration of this concept vehicle. Less strictly speaking, I'm sure those figures become somewhat more within reach with relatively cosmetic modifications to this basic Tomahawk platform, like specialized high speed fairings etc., that greatly alter that HP-gear ratio-drag formula the critics are talking about. It seems unfair to criticize the company too harshly for this hypothetical figure that pretty clearly was pulled out of someone's butt and carelessly reproduced by several writers (albeit ones who Dodge certainly didn't go to great lengths to correct, because why would they?), though again, that doesn't mean that we can't address this misinformation with the preface that these claims probably didn't come directly from Dodge. The press releases posted above don't clearly indicate (IMO) that all of the information they contain came directly from the company.
- Additionally, having only casually followed the development of the Tomahawk, I can't say I've noticed that this top speed issue has been heavily covered, and information about it should probably be confined to a paragraph or two for proper weight - it really seems to be all that should be necessary to cover this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic fashion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the top speed should be covered in this article. The factors limiting the top speed and what would make a higher top speed (aero/gearing/etc) are relevant. I'm not a big fan of the quote regarding the bike having 50% more drag than other bikes, unless there are accurate figures regarding the drag coefficient of the Tomahawk, then that quote is pretty useless.
- There is no need for the ten or so paragraphs that are currently proposed by one or two editors. That would just be silly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- @AdventurousSquirrel: is this press release not from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles? And the two others that repeated the claim in 2006 and 2009? We have video of the COO saying the words, and multiple press releases saying it, and multiple independent sources saying they said it. Nobody disputes they said it, except for a couple Wikipedia editors. We cannot say "that these claims probably didn't come directly from Dodge" because we have no sources for that disclaimer, and multiple sources that they did come from Dodge (or DaimlerChrysler) and now they come -- to this day -- directly from Fiat Chrysler. Even the Tomahawk's most ardent admirers have never advanced this novel theory that Chrysler didn't assert an absurd speed. The whole argument used to minimize the top speed debunking, and limit our coverage of it, is based on original research and armchair speculation. Chrysler isn't embarrassed by the top speed claims, and hasn't denied a thing. They remind everyone of the "potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour" thing every few years. It's only their self-appointed defenders who want to suppress coverage of the topic, taking undisputed facts and recasting them as controversial opinions, in violation of WP:YESPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The press releases don't change the core issue, which is that you want to seriously overemphasize and refute the top speed claim, to the point where it misrepresents the subject to the reader. In Dec 2011, you added an entire section, "Top speed," the only section in the article, to debunk the speed claim, and this is how the article stood for four years. What really concerns and bothers me as a Wikipedia user is that that version would have left me with the impression that the main story behind the Tomahawk is that Dodge promoted an extremely poorly designed performance bike that couldn't achieve the speed it promised, which entirely misrepresents the real situation. This misrepresentation is what is being corrected.
- The top speed claim and how untested and unlikely it is is already covered in the article, and the article could use expansion that would present the design thinking and process in more detail, which would make it even clearer that this was intended as an attention grabber for a car company that didn't even sell motorcycles, and was in no way designed as a serious performance bike. That's the balanced story from the numerous sources. --Tsavage (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Dennis Bratland: You mean the COO's comments at the unveiling? I think it's not good to use those statements for the same reason we shouldn't say Obama admitted that aliens control his actions based on this video. You'll have to forgive the COO's deadpan delivery...the Germans aren't known for their mastery of humor. I think it's meant to hyperbolic to highlight the ridiculousness of the concept of this 500hp V10 motorcycle.
- That press release says "300+ mph (est.)", yes? Certainly implausible in "stock" configuration (whatever "stock" means for a concept vehicle), but I don't think there's any reason to suspect that's too far out of reach with some modifications....is a Tomahawk with specialized fairings, high gears, and some other specialized high-speed modifications still a "Tomahawk"? This is of course mostly unfounded OR on my part, but I'm hoping to bring a bit of a different perspective. In any case, to get a better idea of what you're proposing, do you believe Draft:Dodge Tomahawk represents an ideal version of how much weight should be given to this topic? To be more explicit, how many paragraphs or what percentage of the article (or whatever other measure you care to use) should be devoted to this topic, in your opinion? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- You addressed the question to Dennis but I'm going to go ahead and answer as one of the contributors to the draft. I think no article is "ideal" but we can compare Draft:Dodge Tomahawk against the current incarnation of the article. This article has been going through intense churn since mid-December [48] which hasn't improved it. The draft is far superior in its depth and quality of analysis. It goes into much richer detail about the vehicle's inception and its place in Dodge's history and has a plethora of sources, including very recent printed retrospectives, explaining its cultural relevance. This is, IMHO missing in many of the motorcycling articles and what makes a good Wikipedia article rather than a mere directory entry. I'll repeat what I said before: what makes this vehicle notable (and you'll find this in virtually every source) is partly the styling, partly the place an outside-the-box halo vehicle has to play in modern auto shows, and partly the specific performance claims. These are all well covered in the draft and poorly covered in the mainspace article, to its detriment. The best way to test this idea has been proposed: put the draft up as the article and put it through a good article review for input from folks who have broad experience with what makes up good encyclopedic content. – Brianhe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- The draft still has far too much content related to top speed and top speed claims. Dividing the content between top speed/dodge's changing claims/aerodynamic considerations/test does not reduce the amount of content.
- The critical reception section is equally guilty of having too much content. The first sentence is awful While the majority of motorcycling, automotive, and science press coverage is littered with jokes and sarcasm roasting the Tomahawk, such as AutoWeek suggesting anyone riding the Tomahawk was a Darwin Award contender is it really hard to say some elements of the press criticized the tomahawk ? the leading sentence of that section seems more suitable for a tabloid publication than an encyclopedia.
- Also the Detroit show section belongs in a different article, it seems as if irrelevant content was added to the article, in an attempt to justify the overly large sections on top speed/claims/criticism. Instead of trying to balance biased BS, with irrelevant BS - how about just having neither. Give the top speed claims the 2 or 3 sentences it deserves and you might have a decent draft. As it stands, the main article is much better than the draft. 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)
- Spacecowboy420 just repeating "I don't like it" isn't making any headway. You don't like the section on the auto show; I think it is crucial, perhaps the most important part of the article. Neither those who favor the draft version, nor those who disfavor it, seem likely to change their positions. What say you to my proposal to launch a GA review so new eyes can look at this and give advice? – Brianhe.public (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't required. I've looked at the draft, and there are a few nice parts to it.
- So, I took those parts and put them in the main article, a few minutes ago. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think, truly without trying to be sarcastic, that it is worth pointing out that Wikipedia is an excellent crowdsourcing platform and this article could really benefit from the attention of other editors. It looks like you incorporated all of three sentences from the draft [49], none of which touch on the auto show, which doesn't really seem to meet the spirit of what I was saying. Is this your way of saying you don't support a GA review? – Brianhe.public (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't, I don't think the autoshow is relevant to the article.
- I'm not sure what effect you are expecting from new editors. This article has attracted a lot of new editors over the last month, look at the amount of opinions on the talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Brianhe: There are at least half a dozen editors not previously associated with this article who in the last month have commented at length on this top speed balanced coverage issue, and all of these opinions are remarkably uniform in finding that the speed claim should not be misrepresented by overemphasis. Please consider:
- The varying speed claims were clearly promotional hyperbole and not a serious marketing effort to promote the Tomahawk as a fast bike, indicated by comments and quotes in multiple sources.
- The "debunking" from motorcycle journalists, who did not test the bike, is anecdotal, no different than the speculation of anyone else with motorcycle experience.
- The amount of coverage devoted to the speed claims, measured in the major sources, averages about 15%, and speed is not mentioned until well into the articles.
- The Tomahawk is primarily an embodied concept, a (hastily-engineered) fantasy bike made out of a performance car engine five times bigger than the biggest normal production bikes, and was not intended for normal riding, let alone to be used to break speed records - this is abundantly clear in multiple sources, and is the main story.
The long-standing version of the article from early Dec 2015 misrepresented the Tomahawk, by devoting 70% of the article to criticizing the speed claim. Editors have corrected the balance and begun to expand the article.
Draft:Dodge Tomahawk reintroduces the imbalance by spreading speed claim coverage through a large amount of additional material, much of which appears either overemphasized or redundant or not relevant. There is nothing demonstrably wrong with the current version. New material should therefore be introduced incrementally, and not in a disruptive wholesale manner, allowing editors to verify and comment. --Tsavage (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Why do you keep bringing up the old version? Nobody is proposing going back to that version. We'd like to move forward. The draft offers you a long list of concessions to meet your objections, yet still you refuse to give an inch. It's pretty clear that Tsavage, Spacecowboy420 and team have decided to stonewall instead of meeting anyone halfway, so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis, we have gone through numerous resolution steps already. These steps have not supported the content you wish to be included here. It's getting rather tedious, could you please be the bigger man and just accept that your fellow editors do not agree with your content and back down? We could all be using our time in a far more constructive manner, contributing to articles that deserve our time, rather than repeating the same statements over and over again. There are some really badly written bike articles out there, that deserve our time far much more than this one. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland: A clear statement of the issue, in-depth discussion, and policy-based agreement (WP:BALASPS) among a strong majority of a fair number of editors is about as good as it gets as far as dispute resolution. I'm not part of a team, I don't communicate with any of the editors who've commented, except if I've done so on this page, I've only even seen just one of the editors' names before.
- I mentioned the old version to Brianhe to make clear the underlying situation, as he has apparently joined you in pushing for a particular POV in editing the article - that version demonstrates what you see as proper balance for the speed claim, against all good argument. The issue is with biased speed claim coverage, and that version shows how it exists.
- This isn't a battle for control of the article as you seem to suggest, editors can't (at least, shouldn't) agree on "concessions" in order to allow bad content. Stonewalling doesn't apply, because there's nothing pending. If you're referring to entirely replacing the current article with your draft, that's already been addressed. And my normal incremental editing here is ongoing. --Tsavage (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:SNOW WP:DEADHORSE both seem quite relevant today. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Once again you're misleadingly declaring victory simply because the editors who object to your destructive removal of large amounts of well-cited content have agreed to cease edit warring with you, since you have made clear that you intend to slam that revert button every chance you can get away with. The current article is not stable, and it lacks consensus. It's a terrible whitewash, a promotional bit of advertising that reads like a barely-glossed over press release. The only dead horse is your repeated arguments that amount to nothing but "I don't like it". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you have anything new to add, that I feel I should address, I will do so here, otherwise, please refer to my previous comments on this talk page. I have no interest in repeating myself, going round in circles or interacting with you, anymore than is necessary. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I feel you should address the violations of the WP:NPOV policy enumerated above. You're censored every scrap of independent criticism and commentary in favor of puff and fluff published by the article's subject company. That should be addressed urgently, since it's a core Wikipedia policy. Thanks!
If you're too busy, I'll do it. I've got a balanced version ready to go. OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I feel you should address the violations of the WP:NPOV policy enumerated above. You're censored every scrap of independent criticism and commentary in favor of puff and fluff published by the article's subject company. That should be addressed urgently, since it's a core Wikipedia policy. Thanks!
- If you have anything new to add, that I feel I should address, I will do so here, otherwise, please refer to my previous comments on this talk page. I have no interest in repeating myself, going round in circles or interacting with you, anymore than is necessary. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Appropriate coverage of the speed claim aspect of the Tomahawk has been discussed in detail by a number of editors, and there is agreement that the current version of the article is appropriately balanced based on sources. Of course, this doesn't preclude article expansion, but it does indicate the reasonable amount of emphasis for the speed claim. Introducing an entirely new version of the article, Draft:Dodge Tomahawk, to replace the current one I do not support, for reasons already described. I am as rigorous an article reviewer as any editor participating in Good Articles, and that's my view. --Tsavage (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
the article looks good now. no need for a new version or more junk on top speed Zachlita (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Brianhe:, @Dennis Bratland:, et al.: I think a major reason that this discussion isn't progressing from a deadlock is that clear objectives haven't been stated here, as far as I can tell. Might it be helpful (especially for those of us who haven't been following this discussion for a long time) to briefly enumerate the various points which you believe are lacking from this mainspace article, so we can all address them point-by-point? Right now, I don't see the two opposing sides coming to any middle ground if there are only two diametrically opposed arguments being given - that there is either "too much information on this topic", or alternatively "not enough information on this topic". AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)