Talk:Motrice Pia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Fringe theory?
[edit]I revered the statement that the Daimler Reitwagen is not in fact the first internal combustion motorcycle. Obviously there's a handful of Italian sources that say the Motrice Pia is the first, but I think it qualifies as a fringe theory, as discussed in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I don't think we have any explanation for why the mainstream sources don't discuss it: we just have to put it out there and leave it at that. The verifable facts are:
- Most mainstream sources say the Reitwagen was the first motorcycle
- A few mainstream sources claim either the Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede or Roper steam velocipede was first, or else they say it's debatable
- Exactly 4 sources support the Motrice Pia: [23][24][25][26]
The four sources mentioned are good enough, but I don't see how Wikipedia editors are empowered to overturn the opinions of large numbers of experts in a field who agree on something. I can see how anyone might decide the experts are all wrong, but we can't actually go there ourselves. Some have said we even go too far in even giving the Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede or Roper steam velocipede so much attention, since the existence of the debate about them is not found outside the specialist motorcycle press. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I hardly understand how the author of this paragraph can possibly think that the the documented work of Enrico Zeno Bernardi, Professor of Hydraulic and Agricultural Machinery at the University of Padua and director of the Institute of Machinery in Padua from 1879 until 1915 can possibly be a Fringe Theory. Personally I'm more inclined to think that the statement that Daimler Reitwagen was the first built motorcycle, as accepted by the German scientific community, is a point of view.
- 109.205.249.156 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The change you made was to refer to every single authority we know of on the subject of motorcycling as "some people" and to state unequivocally that, "For this reason the claim that the Reitwagen is to be considered the first motorcycle is to be considered false." Do you understand that "is to be considered" is an imperative? Wikipedia cannot tell our readers "disregard the dozens of sources -- American, British, none of them German -- that say the Reitwagen was the first internal combustion motorcycle. Instead you should only listen to this one Italian professor who claims the invention for his country."
I am the one who requested an article on the Motrice Pia and added the redlinks to the Template:Early motorcycles, because I think it should be taken seriously. But we need to properly share what we know about this with readers and stop there without drawing conclusions. We can't instruct readers, we can't tell them what to think -- if we were to do so I'd be telling them the first motorcycle was the Roper or the Michaux-Perreaux anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- The change you made was to refer to every single authority we know of on the subject of motorcycling as "some people" and to state unequivocally that, "For this reason the claim that the Reitwagen is to be considered the first motorcycle is to be considered false." Do you understand that "is to be considered" is an imperative? Wikipedia cannot tell our readers "disregard the dozens of sources -- American, British, none of them German -- that say the Reitwagen was the first internal combustion motorcycle. Instead you should only listen to this one Italian professor who claims the invention for his country."