This is an archive of past discussions about Motorized bicycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The factual acuracy of this article is disputed... though some pictures and videos have been removed and are await the end of an edit war as well as a discussion further up in this talk page as well as a mediation, this document still has factual accuracy issues that need to be resolved. ie.: Regards to: the photo of Triumph bicycle, video of power-assisted bicyle, expansion of the article, regional discrepencies. etc... and logistic of the article planing. --CyclePat03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Precisely which facts are you stating are inaccurate? Details with citations please. As it stands the issue seems more that it does not conform to your vision of how it should be (see WP:OWN). I have removed the tag in the absence of any evidence of actual factual inacuracy. And those redlinks are still red. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?10:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the disputed tag again. Please do not re-insert it without giving details on this page of the facts which are supposedly inaccurate. Note that there seems to be a lack of support for Pat's idea that this page requires mediation or any other intervention. Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?14:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The disputed tag is for *factual disputes*. It is not for if you are disputing something that was removed. There is no tag for that. It's just for factual disputes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Changes 29 January, 2006.
Unlinked electric power-assist systemagain since (a) there is unlikely to be a valid article with that precise title and (b) this article is already covering electric power-assist systems. What is the point of adding this redlink?
Removed and according to Wired News - USA is becoming increasingly popular from Electric section because we already say this higher up. Why say it twice?
Note that the video does not work on the computer I am using (unlike other ogg videos).
Removed the video Power-assisted bicycle: Riding a power on demand, power-assisted bicycle; File format: Ogg it crashed the player on my own Windows XP machine and in any case the copyright details make it perfectly plain that this is CyclePat's home video of his homebrewed bike, which was removed from the 'pedia by consensus ages ago.
You have obviously removed any information pertinent to the make and model of this type of vehicle within the OGG file. (and as I have stated, maddening, considering the circumstance you have brought up!) You have also put into question the validity of this page and on whether we need to expand the article into a different branch. This is because on one hand you say that this is a generalization of motorized bicycle. It being so shouldn't we then have sub-article that are more specific to the subject. Within the last day you have removed the red links (you so avidly ask me to try and fill-up) to motor assisted bicycle, power assisted system, etc. You have also, taken the liberty to remove a perfectly well sourced information (ie.: Wired USA news article stating that electric bicycle power assist systems are become more popular stating that this already mentioned in the article. However it is not mentioned in the electric bicycle section (where it should belong). You have discriminately picked on me. What is the issue with series hybrid cycle, you seemingly don't have any mean deleting sprees to do on there. Finally on the other hand you refuse to expand the article of motorized bicycle and have voted deletion most sub-articles related to the issue (except when I don't create it). Witch one is it. Do you want to have a general article on motorized bicycle, (inherently sub-articles will be need for this) or do you want to have a complete article? You also fail to acknowledge that there is a dispute over this article. Secondary to that, if you can't recognize that, at least recognize that the fact that you deny that their is even a dispute is a dispute in itself and hence the article is in dispute. Perhaps for the video instead being so pessimistic we could get things off better. I will send you an email. You will need to respond and then I will send you the video file (not the OGG) perhaps then you may be able to format the file in a viewable format. For now, until this issue is resolved, I have put the video back in and put the article dispute back at the top. I hereby request that after your next reply this conversation be brought into private mediation. --72.57.8.21518:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Further to the dispute: another comment to support the fact that there is a factual dispute. If power-assisted bicycle is considered to be it's own machine here in Canada seperate from a motorized bicycle. If we label a power-assisted bicycle as a motorized bicycle we may be leading people to think it is a motorized vehicle when in fact no one is really sure what this machine is. --72.57.8.21518:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a factual dispute. The article can -- and does -- explain that different jurisdictions have different definitions. That's all that's needed. Please stop doing this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then it must be a dispute of NPOV. as per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." This article is clear from the start that it is entirelly "selected". Not only that but the information is not totally substantiated and as per WP:AD : correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: wikipedia:see cite your sources. --CyclePat19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed again, in the absence of any credible evidence of actual factual inaccuracy. Pat, if you think there is factual inaccuracy you could fix it. But there is no factual inaccuracy, only a failure to reflect your POV. Has it never occurred to you that the fact that so many people have told you that you are wrong here might actually mean that you are?
I have now managed to play the video. It is of no particular value in illustrating the article, IMO. Quite paart from the fact that it is you, riding your homebrewed bike, taken with your camera, the level of detail is too low to actually show anythign meaningful: it is a bike moving along under its own power, without pedalling. This is pretty much exactly what is implied by the phrase "motorised bicycle". Some kind of illustration of a pedelec might well be in order, but I really don't see how your home movie adds to the sum of human knowledge here.
As far as NPOV goes, the article seems to be perfectly acceptable to everyone but you. Since you have a vested interest, serious consideration should be given to the possibility that it is your POV which is not neutral. If you add the tag again without showing some genuine verifiable fixable factual inaccuracy I will interpret it as vandalism. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?20:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, YOU ARE the VANDAL here, you have repeatedly removed the dispute label when it clearly states in WP:AD that you should not remove it until the issue is resolved. The article contains a particular strong amount of "information which is particularly difficult to verify." The reason is it difficult to verify is because YOU keep removing well sourced information and summarizing the information. You pick and chose what you want. Inherently you are creating a POV. As per wikipedia:NPOV dispute "The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view." secondly, "Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms," sugesting that our "power-assisted bicycle" is a in fact a motorized bicycle. The article is simply biased, expressing viewpoints as facts.
"Early motorized bicycles were powered by internal combustion (IC) engines. As electric motors have become lighter and battery storage density higher, the electric motor has recently seen an increase in popularity." (note I had a perfect source for this but you deleted it and transformed it into a POV sentence.)
"Motorized bicycles are distinguished from motorcycles by being designed to be powered by pedals alone if required." (who said this... is this your POV... or I should say OUR POV?)
In countries where there is a strong bicycle culture (notably in Asia), the motorised bicycle is particularly popular. (again who says that? Why should I believe it is popular? this is pure POV)
And that is just within the first paragraph. I haven't even started. Now... I'll put the article information dispute back in. I'll continue listing the elements of dispute. Once we fix that first part.
For the video I think it is totally naive to eleminate a video because of it's quality. That's what you said. I take your edits as a personal attack as per WP:NPA. You have stated that I "have a vested interest, serious consideration should be given to the possibility that it is your POV which is not neutral." I believe you in violation of so many rules you can't even see it ie. WP:NPA states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." You have removed the video because you feel (I am associated with the company CyclePat). You have discredited and attempted to discredit every edit I do. No. Really you have gone to far. Secondly for the video by removing it you are inherently agreed that it doesn't have it's place in this article. This being said it is only logical for this video to placed in it's own seperate article. You are hence contradicting yourself on your previous nomination for deletion of the article pedelec. Where should this video be placed? You say it is poor quality. The moon walk is also poor quality. You say it is not meaningful. THAT IS PURE POV. PURE POV. I'dd bet you 100$ that some stranger that is not so familiar as you would be happy to see this video. And just like the space shutle launch, I'm sure this video can be incorperated. --CyclePat21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
On step ahead of you guys. May I sugest you read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_How_to_Build_Wikipedia%2C_Understand_Bias and pay particular attention to the comment: "I agree 100% with the view that we shouldn't just delete whatever we regard as being biased, and I think The Cunctator is right to harp on this point. I personally have seen only a few egregious examples of unwarranted deletions, but I agree that there has been a problem along these lines." --CyclePat21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Your ability to find support for your position in the furthest reachjes of Wikipedia while simultaneously failing to spot how what you are doing is addressed in WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and the multiple comments from other Wikipedians never ceases to amaze me. What you are in effect saying is that even though you have an acknowledged bias and are pushing a barrow, we should let you get away with it because you think we're wrong when we say that your POV-pushing is POV-pushing. Sadly, long experience leads me (and others) to conclude that POV-pushers are rarely best placed to objectively assess the merits of their own work. And those redlinks are still red.
As stated above, the tags are removed because THERE IS NO DISPUTE. No facts in the article are known to be inaccurate, therefore placing a factual accuracy dispute tag on the thing is wrong, and replacing it after it's removed is vandalism and removing it is not vandalism. Further, your POV is provably non-neutral. Failure of the article to conform to your POV does not mean the article has an POV problem, it means you have a POV problem - in fact you seem to have a m:MPOV problem. Please stop adding tags! This is an encyclopaedia article, and it covers the topic neutrally and accurately. Just not how you want it covered. But you are biased (everyone is). - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have showed you some proof. (up above there is at least 3 examples of NPOV) now it is your responsibility to show me your side, try to convince me it isn't or maybe even work together at making the article better. The fact that you don't acknowlege those afformentioned example is another example of your lack of cooperation. And the fact that you just reverted the tabs that say that there is a dispute is a clear indication that you can not see the problem. I sugest we leave those disputes at the top and head for an outside POINT of VIEW (some editors that are not involved and then contrast with our ideas on the subject) Mediation may be required, or the use of advocates. Unless you have some better sugestion. Because doing a straw poll, as you are attempting to do below, is not going to solve the problem. Unless of course we proceed differently and publicly (as per AFD, which seems to be, unfortunatelly, seems to be the most common procedure to receive comments about an article... even when it's not necessarilly an article that should be deleted.) Again, This article is in dispute about the content of the video, the NPOV (the non-sourced documentation, etc... THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT IS THERE. It just means the way it is substantiated (sourced) is flawed and need re-writing. --CyclePat23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope. You have shown that the article does not match your POV, which is a different thing. I see no evidence of biased content in the article and I see no evidence of factual inaccuracy in the article, which is what those tags mean. I see plenty of evidence that you (alone) don't like the article, but it is also apparent that anythig other than your own vision is unacceptable to you, which makes it your problem not the article's. You forget, we have now had at least three admins and severla others come in and give an outside POV, all of whom decided you are wrong. Eventually you are going to have to accept the fact that the problem is you, not the article. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This locking of the article and refusal to investigate further into the NPOV is seemingly bad. According to NPOV :"In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation." And though I may seemingly agree with some of the formulation such as the electric motor has recently seen an increase in popularity., this is a PURE POV. We need to do ass sugested and add the source information. (note I had a perfect source for this but you deleted it and transformed it into a POV sentence.) Secondly I feel like this is an attempt to keep things hush hush. You have removed the dispute and removed the NPOV and we are Still arguing about what!!! Preciselly that the NPOV and the content dispute. A sugestion further down in NPOV states: "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs has poor habits" can be reworded to "Joe Bloggs has often been criticized for his habits, by observers such as Momar Kadafi and Anwar Saddat." Perhaps we should follow that as a guideline. As per WP:NPOV#a simple formulation "But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
Finally as for the video I believe that it should be put in. you have not added any valid point that don't violate WP:AP and the NPOV argument "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?" --CyclePat23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The premise that NPOV should be published is based mostly on the fact that it says that right within the rule. something along the line of: If you feel there is a POV issue you are probably correct. I'm not making this up. Also, the fact that you have removed the NPOV and Dispute warning at the top of the page has me questioning your motives. Consiquently, I wonder if it is because you don't want this page to be flaged and have the attention that it needs or if it is because you seriously believe these issues are not there. No matter the case my belief that NPOV violations are occuring is still strong. And it would ease the situation if you could explain your arguable conduct of wiki policy violationson such as, why it is you are so adiment at continuessly removing those article dispute and NPOV tabs? Now...
Now according to WP:NPOVUW rules from Jimbo himself. "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" Furthermore it goes on to say "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." This being said. The NPOV clearly says that it is possible to expand our article into seperate articles. Not only that but, it recomends we do that. The fact that you remove the video of a power-assisted bicycle only seems to substantiat the fact that perhaps it is time to have a seperate article for electric bicycles and power-assisted bicycles (unless of course you have changed your mind on the inclusion of this video). Secondly... I still see some unsubtantiated remarks in the article... everything on wiki should be verifiable. So perhaps I should be putting veriable information.
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. may be the case --CyclePat01:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again you are dredging support from the farthest reaches of Wikipedia whilst blithely ignoring the core policies. You have already weasted far more of the community's timeon this issue than can be justified by any sane assessment of its importance. As you will see below, the POV problem is only apparent to you, which indicates (as has been stated multiple times) that it is your POV which is out of line, not that of the article.
I'm not going to go through line by line but merely point out one glaring and self-evident contradiction: you say that to state that electric motors are increasing in popularity is POV, but then you declare that removing a duplicate sentence saying that electric motors are increasing in popularity is also POV. WTF? It is cumbersome and unnecessary to cite a source for every single sentence in an article, especially when the truth of it is undisputed and self-evident. The entry of Giant, one of the world's largest bike makers, into the electric bike market is a powerful sign that they are increasing in popularity, wouldn't you say?
It is very clear to me that the "POV" issue you perceive relates solely to the fact that this article categorises electric bikes as motorised bicycles, which does not help your lobbying for legislative change in Ontario. What we are arguing about is not what is in the article, but the fact that you want a different article altogether, which is not supported by consensus. The only POV problem is you and your POV. So go and stick the NPOV tag on your user page instead. We have already talked about the addition of trivia, I gave an extensive example of why not all verifiable information should be included, paper or not (this is also by common consent). And those redlinks are still red.
But you keep coming back and you keep trying again and you keep repeating the same arguiments and you keep forking the article and you keep tagging it and you keep trying other processes - and always with exactly the same result: people tell you that you are wrong. What will it take for you to believe it? - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV and Disputed
Will ANYONE other than CyclePat who thinks there is ANY evidence of EITHER factual accuracy OR non-neutral POV in this article as it stands please step forward and give details. Please note: that is anyone OTHER THAN PAT. Just to be absolutely clear and unambiguous here, this question is NOT FOR PAT, it's for anybody else who thinks that there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or bias in this article. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Aside: I couldn't resist to say,... "Ooooooooh! Will the real slim shady please stand up, please stand up!" --CyclePat22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it. Disputed tag can only be used for factual problems with an article, not with things like removing video. The tag even says that. It says "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". It cannot be used in any other case. NPOV tag is only used if there is a dispute over the neutrality of an article. Again, I don't see that here. Adding and removing video doesn't add or take away from NPOV. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:CITE. All information that is not properly sourced may be removed. I higly recomend you start encouraging someone to start adding the sources for the above issues. --CyclePat14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again Pat has made it appear as if a perfectly decent and accurate article is some kind of POV nightmare, when it is Pat's POV, not the article's, which is out of line. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yet another tag
Removed the {uncited} tag. As stated above, there is no known issue witht he neutrality or factual accuracy of this article, no fact stated is in the least contentious, so there is no need to provide a reference for every sentence, as Pat seems to want.
The "issues" Pat identifies are non-issues. The only person seeing them as issues is the only person who is known to have a vested interest. Pat, if you think there are minor issues with things like the Bionx (and that really is a seriously trivial point), then fix them. Don't slap a box on the top which makes it look as if this entire article is someone's private soapbox, because the only soapbox I can see here is the one you are standing on. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You have violate WP:NPA. The reason you suplied for removal of this tag are a clear violation of WP:NPA. You have clearly stated vested interest here. This is not an argument that is appropriate or even logical for the removal. --CyclePat15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You have a vested interest (read the definition of what the temr means), I do not. See above where User:Katefan0 agrees with me that you are "trying to make something out of nothing". I have reverted the dozens of ridiculous tags you added, and am still waiting for any substantive demonstration of actual dispute over factual accuracy. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't prove what's not there. SPecially when we are missing information citations. I will shortly reverted back. --CyclePat16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Not only that but you have now violated the request for article expansion rule. This is getting ridiculus. Please pay attention to the subtle changes. Thank you.
Like Katefan said, you don't usually require a citation for "the sky is blue". Since nobody but you is disputing a single fact, and that only late in the game following your failure to get your way through multiple other processes, what you are doinjg is simply vandalism, violating WP:POINT. I looked at the "subtle" changes, and frankly they were nto that subtle. Like adding yet more tags to support absolutely no dispute but your own. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me try and say this a little nicer. I understand that you don't need to say the ski is blue. But if you start saying the blue sky is popular than you are getting into a POV. The article on several occasions leans into this. That means we are presenting presenting a POV as if it where the truth. We need to present the POV as something someone has said. To do that we need to substantiat the information. To substantiate the information we need to very and WP:CITE and expand the article. --CyclePat17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me try and say this a little clearer: since you are the only one who has a problem, the problem seems to be you. You are currently asking for citations for about a dozen facts which have been in there unchallenged for months in order to make a point about the removal of yet another piece of trivia. The net result is that a perfectly decent article with no known factual inaccuracies looks like a ocmplete dog's breakfast, with more tags that Turkey's claim to Cyprus, because one person (that would be you) is on a mission to force their POV against consensus. Fuck it, I'll leave the tags in and let everybody see just how ludicrous they are. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]AfD?19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved text
I have moved the text In a parallel hybrid motorized bicycle' man and machine are mechanically coupled [...] from the intro to the Electric section. It is not part of Pat's dispute. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C]13:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD? 10:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
AfD? 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)