Talk:BMW R1100GS

Ghost Rider book relevance

With minimal effort, I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See [23][24][25][26] etc. Before you call it trivia and say it "cannot be integrated" it behooves you to at least try to integrate it before deleting well-cited material that has copious sources in books, magazines, and newspapers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

...Furthermore, the basic reason why this is relevant is that the sources tell us that it is relevant. Wikipedia is, ideally, a slave to its sources, and has no need of editors' opinions. A counter case would be mentioning Steve McQueen (song) in the article Steve McQueen. I argued it was irrelevant trivia on the grounds that not one single source -- not even one music critic, not one McQueen biographer -- found the mention of McQueen's name in Sheryl Crow's song to be worth mentioning. They never indicated that dropping McQueen's name mattered in any way, and never told us what it meant.

Here, on the other hand, it takes only a cursory Google search of Neil Peart and BMW or R1100GS to see that source after source after source calls out the name and type of the motorcycle in their discussion of Peart's book, his life, and his music. It mattered that he was on a dual sport, and a BMW. Just like with the Honda CB77, it mattered that Robert Pirsig rode a Honda and not a BMW or Harley-Davidson in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. But only because sources see fit to make a point of it.

The only issue is that the section on Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road should be expanded to explain more about the role the bike played. I'd probably lean most of Brian Catterson's accounts in both Motorcyclist and Cycle World, but there's plenty to draw from. If all these sources didn't exist, there'd be a good argument to delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis. Well, first you are incorrect about me not trying to integrate the material; if you look at the edits you will see that I first seperated the material on Peart, which sat uncomfortably in the scetion titled 'Popularity', into a section of its own titled 'Miscellany' (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BMW_R1100GS&diff=482035262&oldid=482033986). Then, upon checking again Wikipedia's criteria for trivia/miscellany, I realised that even this did not solve the problem of the material not being relevant enough to include on a encylcopedic page on the BMW R100GS.

Re: your assertion that 'with minimal effort, I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle.' I'm afraid this would fall into the category of disengenous self-justification. Meaning that if you go out specifically looking for proof of Peart riding this bike then you will find it. That is in the nature of the Internet. But Wikipedia entries are not about such specifics.

(Also, as already been pointed out, it is irrelevant to cite any number of research reference's to the material if the material is in itself not relevant enough the the entry. In that case, the references do not change eligibility.)

For example: 'source after source calls out the name and type of the motorcycle in their discussion of Peart's book, his life, and his music' is an argument only for an inclusion of the bike in an entry about Peart, it is not an argument for an inclusion of Peart in an entry about the bike - this is because the bike is relevant to him but this does not mean that Peart is relevant to the bike.

Indeed, contrary to your more specific search, a more general search of Google - a search that is more in line with Wikipedia's criteria for relevance - reveals the following: In the whole of the first page of Google entries regarding the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is NO mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike:

1st Google search entry - http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/bikereviews/searchresults/Bike-Reviews/BMW/BMW-R1100GS-1994-1999/ -

2nd - http://community.preloved.co.uk/fuseaction-reviews.showreview/productId-2055/7f1f8d9b.html - no mention

4th - http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/BMW-R1100-1150-Twins-Tips-for-Owners?ugid=10000000001925443&clk_rvr_id=313116230311

5th - http://www.bmbikes.co.uk/specpages/R1100GS.htm

6th - http://micapeak.com/bmw/gs/gs_tel1.html

7th - http://www.sylviastuurman.eu/motor/r1100gs/

8th - http://www.bobpickett.co.uk/bkit/bmwr1100gs.htm

9th - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JJXoMAVI3Y

10th - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzs4tvNWjyg

Similarly, in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is NO image of the drummer and the bike.

This would seem to settle the case on relevance, re: page entry about the BMW R1100GS.

There are many examples on Wikipedia of classic cases of an enthusiast's fervor for a subject - whether here it be Peart or the bike - skewing their objectivity reading regarding the relevance of information to an entry. And while enthusiasm is an important part of Wikipedia and is, in fact, what drives people to contribute their time and effort for free, it is something that also needs to be tempered by the distance that other editors have from the subject. Rivercard (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The bike is a central part of the book, not something that is mentioned in passing - one of the key criteria according to WP:IPC. So significant was the bike that it is now featured in the Motorcycle Hall of Fame - donated to the museum by Peart himself. If the bike were just trivia then I very much doubt that the museum would want it. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

All I have to add to this interminable debate is WP:SNOW. Expending so much effort trying to delete a few very well-sourced lines from an article is not a good use of anyone's time. If this were about avoiding undue weight of derogatory information on a BLP, I could see it, but this is absolutely silly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what is interesting about those two responses above is that they both unintentionally make the case for deletion rather than against it.

1.
Biker Biker, if we were debating an article about the book that features the bike, then your response would be apt - in fact, your response reads more as if it was taken from a debate about the book rather than about the bike. But this discussion is about the bike page, not the book page.

'The bike is a central part of the book, not something that is mentioned in passing' - exactly, in which case, the relationship between bike/book is the same as the one I describe above between bike/Peart: the bike might be relevant to the book, but the book is not relevant to the bike - and, again remember, the entry we are discussing is about the bike article, not the book article.

Similarly 'If the bike were just trivia then I very much doubt that the museum would want it' also misses the point: it is not the bike itself that is in question (because how can the bike possibly be 'trivial' to its own article; it can't, and no one has suggested it could) - what is in question is the relevance of having a seperate section about a book in the middle of a bike article.

2.
Dennis. Again, it seems as if you are misusing Wikipedia criteria in order to try inhibit debate; this time by citing Wp:SNOW - which, for those not versed, means an edit does not have a snowballs chance in hell of standing. This clearly is not one of those instances because people have different views on it and there is as yet no clear consensus.

Also, I find the weighted language used here, re: 'interminable' 'expending so much effort' and 'this is absolutely silly', to be unhelpful, condescending and baffling: the whole of Wikipedia is founded on people expending their time, even (and perhaps especially) on things that you might find 'silly'. If you, personally, have reached the limits of the time you want to spend on this then by all means absent yourself from the debate - but please do not characterise other Wikipedians efforts beyond your own as 'silly'.

I think the most interesting thing about the Biker Biker/Dennis responses is not what they say but what they do not say: at no point do either even attempt to disprove what I had already proved in my research: that a simple Google search - a search that is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on relevance - under the term 'BMW R1100GS', provides NO immediate or easily found mention of Neil Peart or the book in connection with the BMW R100GS in either Google pages or Google images. None.

But you raise an issue - like Google search - as a point of proof, and then just silently drop it when it proves not to support your case. This is not good practice. (And is perhaps part of the reason why you find these debates 'interminable'.)

As I said about this in response to Brainhe on Dennis Bratland's 'talk page':

Are we then saying that the past or present ownership or usage of a vehicle by a famous person (or someone meeting Wikipedia 'notability' criteria) is enough to warrant it's inclusion on the entry page about that vehicle? If that is the case then it would obviate accusations of triviality at including such material, but it seems that as yet there is no consensus on the issue. But, on balance, it would seem to me that Wikipedia criteria lean more against it than for... (meaning that even if we personally think an entry is 'better' for having more information on it, that still doesn't trump the objective criteria laid down for inclusion).

All things considered, I think the best solution would be if the Wikipedia criteria on the inclusion of trivia was ammended slightly to allow the inclusion of a brief section of trivia/ephemera/miscellanea at the foot of an entry; this could then be a repository for all this material that might be related to but not strictly relevant to the entry. It would also free up time from these 'interminable', 'silly' debates - if that's really what you think they are - and also give contributors a reason to not to try crowbar tangentially related material into the main text. Rivercard (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We know it's not trivia or tangential because many authorities treat it as important. Having a section header called Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road is a useful navigation aid that organizes the article into different subject areas. Deleting the section header would make the article less coherent.

It is a mistake to interpret a lack of point-by-point rebuttals as a sign of the strength of the arguments here; quite the contrary, these arguments are unconvincing. Statements like "...if you go out specifically looking for proof of Peart riding this bike then you will find it," are bizarre, even laughable. We're not allowed to go out looking for reliable sources to cite? We're supposed to wait for the sources to come to us? I made a concerted effort on multiple occasions to find even one quality source that said they thought it mattered that the Ducati 848 made a cameo in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Finding none, I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia.

Asking anyone to refute such strange arguments looks a lot like trolling. Hence my complaints about wasting time -- drawing out interminable arguments that have no chance of success is disruptive. Calling a bad argument a bad argument is not a personal attack, and pretending that it is a personal attack is also disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The central point again seems to have been missed: it is not that there is no evidence of Peart using the bike (and neither did I say that), it is whether or not the evidence is commonly available enough to justify it's inclusion on an entry about the bike.

The mere availability of information is not proof of notability or relevance (especially given the sheer amount of information available on the web). And you seem to be mistaking notabilty and availability. The availability of information on Peart riding the bike is not in question. However, notable available information to the general reader that reflects a ready link between the two is certainly not available - as evidenced by simple Google page and Google image searches under 'BMW R1100GS', the immediate results of which reveal no mention of the drummer whatsoever.

This is the clinching difference between what is out there on the net (virtually anything and everything) and what is out there that readily meets Wikipedia criteria for relevance. Conflating the two is not helpful, although it does advance your case.

Remember, it was you that first raised the point about the supposed easy availability - 'source after source calls out the name and type of the motorcycle in their discussion of Peart's book, his life, and his music' - so for you to complain about a well researched rebuttal is less a rejection of my argument than it is a rejection of the very nature of open Wikipedia debate.

'Deleting the section header would make the article less coherent - This is interesting because it neatly ignores the fact that the material only has a section heading now because I gave it one earlier - (albiet before deleting the section entirely when even that fell foul of Wikipedia miscellany/trivia content) - a heading of 'Miscellany' which was then ammended to the current heading. Neither yourself nor the entry's original author thought the Peart material was important enough to seperate into a headed section (it was languishing uneasily in 'popularity'). But, for some reason, you do now think it's important enough, but only in response to it being questioned. Which seems rather odd.

'Statements like "...if you go out specifically looking for proof of Peart riding this bike then you will find it," are bizarre.' - No, not at all within the context in which they were framed (see all the above). For example, I could find plenty of sourced evidence that Christopher Hitchens's cigarette of choice was a Rothman's, but that information added to an encyclopedia biography would be mere trivia - especially if it was seperated into its own section.

Important note,: The formulation of these arguments in no way approaches any reasonable definition of trolling and, again, you seem all too ready to use the kind of inflated language that is designed to curtail debate. After only two posts you were already reaching for the word 'interminable'. As I've said, if you have reached the limit of the amount of time you want to give to this then please feel free to move on but, at the same time, please do not mischaracterise the efforts of others just because you have reached an end.

So, given that, I presume that that will be your last word on the subject....

But... maybe not. I often find that those that are most ready with the 'get a life/get over it' argument are also the ones most reluctant to do exactly that themselves. There is nothing forcing you to reply other than your own desire to do so, and your own decision that it is something you want to do. Wikipedia is founded on time freely given, not on that freely given time being scorned or mocked or misrepresented as something else, and I'd thank you not to misrepresent mine. Rivercard (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote: re: 'Asking anyone to refute such...' I didn't ask for a refutal (which is impossible as this discussion is about something that cannot be empirically proved or disproved), I merely expected a sourced rebuttal.

Wikipedia has no "criteria for relevance". That's imaginary. There are standards for reliable sources, which have been met, in spades. There is also a guideline called Wikipedia:Summary style which suggests doing precisely what this article does: provide a brief summary of the article Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road and then link to it for full coverage.

Complaints about flaws in past versions of the article have no relevance to discussions of the current article. See WP:NOTDONE. Suggesting that other editors have no right to edit this article now because they didn't edit the article in the past is not a convincing reason to delete anything, and also a violation of WP:OWN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Again there seems to be some confusion of terms and their use, most importantly in reference to how sources are used.

‘There are standards for reliable sources, which have been met,’ - This is the core problem - sources (even reliable ones) are immaterial if the added content is not relevant to the article. This is the problem with the Peart material - it is not relevant to a general encyclopaedic entry on this motorcycle. (Please see again my above example of Christopher Hitchens/Rothman’s cigarettes - the availability of reliable sources does not change the relevance of the content to an encyclopaedia entry, and no amount of repetition will change this.)

I think this needs stating very explicitly: references only come into play once a relevance in the material has been established. Non-relevant material, however well referenced or sourced, is still non-relevant.

‘There is also a guideline called Wikipedia:Summary style which suggests doing precisely what this article does: provide a brief summary of the article Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road and then link to it for full coverage’ - Again, as with references, ‘summary style’ is irrelevant if the content itself is not relevant. Style and reference both then become moot points if attributed to material that should not be there in the first place.

Re: OWN - Very important to be more accurate here with use of 'ownership', I think. My own lowly numbered five contributions to an article that already has over fifty edits is not a definition of ownership (especially when 35 of those 50 edits are by another single user).

I think we need to recap:

1) Is there any available evidence (e.g Google page/Google image search) of a ready connection between Peart and bike that could be found by general search - Answer: No.

2) Does a more specific search that includes the word ‘Peart’ reveal a connection - Answer: yes.

• Discuss: Which of the above two searches most accurately replicates the relevance demanded of Wikipedia articles? Personally, I think it is obvious that a general search is the better one and the most apposite. On the other hand, a specific search can reveal evidence of connection but that doesn’t speak to the relevance that a general encyclopaedia entry requires.

(NB: And here I’m using as the primary source of sources Google Search (page and image) as an established and accepted standard of what is meant by a general/encyclopaedic search.)

• Footnote (but an important one):‘Suggesting that other editors have no right to edit this article now because they didn't edit the article in the past is not a convincing reason to delete anything’ - At no time in the above discussion do I suggest that no one else has the right to edit the article (please provide evidence otherwise), and neither do I advance that as a reason for deletion. The actual reason for deletion is laid out plainly above.
  

Rivercard (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. All I can suggest is maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an idea. But, as a strangely self-denegrating admittance, the use of TL;DR certainly takes some beating! (Can't quite bring myself to believe it, though: I'll bet there was a little peeking between the fingers...) However, as I didn't intend to overawe, I'm quite prepared to tailor an edit for you:

'I think we need to recap:

1) Is there any available evidence (e.g Google page/Google image search) of a ready connection between Peart and bike that could be found by general search - Answer: No.

2) Does a more specific search that includes the word ‘Peart’ reveal a connection - Answer: yes.

Discuss: Which of the above two searches most accurately replicates the relevance demanded of Wikipedia articles? Personally, I think it is obvious that a general search is the better one and the most apposite.

On the other hand, a specific search can reveal evidence of connection but that doesn’t speak to the relevance that a general encyclopaedia entry requires.'

Please let me know if you require still further... concision. Rivercard (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive 24#BMW_R1100GS? Seems like a clear enough outcome to me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not clear enough: it says the material is 'unquestionably marginal' (which is quite far from your original assertion that it is not) and ALSO that is non-consensual and should remain only until consensus is reached - 'it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action'.

There is an important and still hanging question in the post that wasn't read, but I guess it will remain forever hanging.

However, delighted to discover that you didn't find the new posts too long and that you did read. (Quite an improvement (though I often suspect that the use of the self-impugning TL;DR is more likely a case of DR;DC.))

Rivercard (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Here are some quotes showing the R1100GS meets WP:GNG. The article just needs to be improved and expanded, that's all.

• "Metzeler designed a tire and tread specifically for the BMW R1100GS" [27]
• The R1100GS was "a whole new ball game. It's a lot faster than the old R100, able to cover huge distances two-up, and very comfortable with it. Nearly 40,000 were sold..." The R100GS "opened up a whole new market, significantly including riders who would never have otherwise bought a BMW." [28] (p. 16)
• The bike was "BMW's main entry in the dual-sport market" [29]
  • Note that "BMW's been in this game [adventure-touring motorcycles] longer than anyone". In other words, the ancestor of the R1200GS was their main dual sport back in the days before terms like "adventure touring" were even popular. [30] The "BMW GS defines the adventure-touring class" [31]
• It was "The Ghost Rider bike" [32][33]
• Neil Peart's R1100GS was exhibited in one of the top US motorcycles museums, the AMA Motorcycle Hall of Fame Museum, in their Motostars exhibit.[34][35]
• See also [36] Motorcyclist September 1994.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)