Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moving some content to off-roading

How about moving some of this article's content to off-roading? Most of the text in the article concern the activity anyway. Harald Hansen 08:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, keeping this page for the vehicles only.Scotbotuk 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did move some content to offroading, but User:Alexander-Scott reverted it (but did not revert the off-roading article...) I still think most of the articles content regards what modifications recreational offroaders do their vehicles, and I will try to modifiy this article again. Harald Hansen 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of off-roading

I agree that criticism from environmental groups should be included, but using obscure sources with outdated references looks like the changes are made to fuel or back political debates over land use issues. Using wikipedia for such debates is counter productive to the overall goal and is a bit insulting to editors who try to maintain NPOV articles even though they may agree/disagree with a belief, use, or way of life.--I already forgot 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Criticism of off-roading

What is your reasoning for removing noise pollution? And why say that environmentalists are the only ones who think that ORVs are harmful? You're changing the NPOV. You should leave it as it is. Loperco 02:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And just as a note, I am also watching the Hummer article, and I have removed stupid anti-Hummer links, as well as removed vandalism without trying to change the POV. There was a previous discussion here about a different quote, which is resolved now. Loperco 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean about anti hummer links and really don’t care either way about the vehicle myself. The problem is you have not addressed the issue of using an obscure web page with outdated and unverifiable refs from the 70's and 80's as a source that have nothing to do with modern vehicles and current sound pollution. The issue is not with noise pollution but with uncited assertions and/or assertions from uncredible sources to push an obvious agenda or POV.--I already forgot 02:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note about "modern vehicles" and "current sound pollution" indicate to me that you're not an entirely objective editor. Instead of reverting over and over again, why don't you find some links that say "modern vehicles have reduced noise problems?"

Noise pollution is a real thing, even if you consider the 80s to be "outdated." However, I have added a quote from the Wilderness Society to illustrate the noise pollution point, and only included some of the behavioral consequences listed by the link that you think is too old. My point about the Hummer was that I can edit something similar without changing the POV. Your removal of the noise pollution paragraph seems more like an attempt on your part to unbalance the POV. Loperco 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean by your statements. If you added that off-road vehicles are a major source of lead pollution, and then cited sources from the 60's (as they used leaded gas then) I would have the same issue. Vehicles of today are nothing like that of the 60', 70's, or 80's and shouldn't even be disputed.

As for your accusations of objective editing, I do consider myself an objective editor, and as an environmentalist, an owner of an offroad vehicle, and someone who has and will conduct an environmental survey for a government entity regarding the effects of such use, I find your statements to be totally off base and unfounded. I look for valid sources to back up your statements and found none at this point. Some sensible environmentalist take a logical approach to activism to educate and promote awareness to problems. What you are doing is exactly what has plagued current environmental mis-understanding by pushing an extreme opinion (using bleeding animals and such) as a scare tactic or sock value. What you are doing only further divides grassroots environmentalism leaving us painted as extreme. As for wiki articles, I only look for facts and then add them to the article with a NPOV, no matter what my opinion on the subject is. This article bar far is no exception. It's obvious when you provide valid logical facts, people listen. When you provide totally extreme uncited sources for an agenda, you only further the division between opposing ideas, leaving your words falling on deaf ears. With that said, I guess I can no longer be considered an objective editor and now hand this article over for you to continue using as your podium.--I already forgot 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Off-road vehicles in pop culture

The list of songs, films, and television programs is pointless and pedantic. It's pointless to point out each individual instance of an ORV appearing in pop culture. You don't see the same in sports car or SUV.

And many of the examples given don't even have anything to do with being off road. For example, Varsity Blues says "Has the truck painted and numbered like his football uniform". It doesn't mention actually going off road and it's a minor (to put it lightly) part of the film.

For these reasons, I'm being bold and removing the section. Dismas|^(talk) 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of the list in the article, how about a new page titled "List of modified ORV's in pop culture" or something to that affect? Sports cars and SUV's are in thousands of movies/music/tv everyday, to see a lifted, modified ORV in film/tv is very rare and I thought noteworthy. There are lots of pages on Wikipedia about references of this or that in pop culture. To have a list of the 30-40 movies/music/tv with prominent ORV's seems to be reasonable. Anyone who is a fan of ORV's would also say that the truck in Varsity Blues was definitely something not seen in movies often and it has lots of screen time. The beginning sequence and the scene with Billy Bob shooting his trophies both had the truck in them. Perhaps I could also remove any instances where the vehicle is not lifted/modified as well (all of the Hummer references would be removed). Mtxchevy 14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Edward Abbey qoute

Loperco, I understand the dislike by many enviromentalists of the recreation of off-roading and using off-road vehicles. However, I do not see the need for a rant, even by a famous author, to be added to this or any other page. Please discuss this on the Talk page before editing the main article any further. Mtxchevy 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to ORV edit comment I am willing to remove the most insulting first few words ("The fat pink slobs..."), but with all due respect, you have an entire article to glorify and give a how-to on ORVs. Edward Abbey was not some obscure American writer. He was quite famous and he was a very loud (although not always politically-correct) voice on conservation. I'd suggest that instead of removing a quote that puts a human voice on the damage caused by ORVs, you continue to build the strength of your article in other areas. Also- I do not wish to personally attack you. Thanks for understanding. Also- there is nothing stopping you from discrediting Abbey too. He had lots of enemies as well as fans, and I'm sure you can find something.

The quote:

Iconic American conservationist Edward Abbey was fervently opposed to the use of ORVs in natural areas, as he expressed in a humorous 1976 letter to Esquire Magazine:

"[Those] who go roaring over the landscape in these over-sized over-priced over-advertised mechanical mastodons are people too lazy to walk, too ignorant to saddle a horse, too cheap and clumsy to paddle a canoe. Like cattle or sheep, they travel in herds, scared to death of going anywhere alone, and they leave their sign and spoor all over the back country: Coors beer cans, Styrofoam cups, plastic spoons, balls of Kleenex, wads of toilet paper, spent cartridge shells, crushed gopher snakes, smashed sagebrush, broken trees, dead chipmunks, wounded deer, eroded trails, bullet-riddled petroglyphs, spray-painted signatures, vandalized Indian ruins, fouled-up waterholes, polluted springs and smoldering campfires piled with incombustible tinfoil, filter tips, broken bottles. Etc (Postcards from Ed, 2006, p66-67)."

LoperCo 10:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Edward Abbey has probably been posted to promote a particular viewpoint rather than to create a balanced article. If the purpose was to supply examples of opposition then something objective, a considered viewpoint should be added instead of a rant. I've removed it and hope that someone will find a more objective quote to publish. Scotbotuk 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove the EA quote again, could someone find something more objective? The quote mentions all sorts of destruction that have nothing to do with Off road vehicles. We need something from the UK ramblers association, Greenpeace etc rather than this nonsense. Scotbotuk 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to ORV edit comment Why is the quote not relevant? Abbey is writing about instances that he *witnessed* in the outdoors, as a result of people driving their ORVs in natural areas. Surely, some ORV users are irresponsible. Surely, some litter. Surely, some spraypaint, drive over vegetation, even animals. Surely, some leave smoldering campfires. Maybe not all do it, but it is certainly a concern when considering people driving around in wilderness. You should leave it in, if for the only reason to make people aware of what others have done, and what they *should not* do. It's not offensive, it's not irrelevant, and it's by an established writer. Loperco 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You might as well have a long rant on grafitti and vandalism in the spray paint article... Anyway, I think most of the article now concerns recreational offroading, and should be split off into an article concerning just that. There the quote would be somewhat on-topic. Harald Hansen 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote is not relevant because almost all the issues quoted are universal problems, not specific to ORV use. Why haven't you added quotes about trout fishing, stamp collecting, yoga, cookery, baseball, microelectronics and astronomy? Surely there are some ORV users that do these things. Lets keep it on-topic and not include rants from authors that we are particuarly keen on just for the sake of it. The article should be NPOV and balanced, this is another reason why non-objective rants spoil the article. Scotbotuk 08:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The quote above by Edward Abbey, would appear to be a case of bigotry not of a neutral point of view. There is not a single logical or factional correlation between off roading and the illegal and immoral behavior described in the quote. I personal find it extremely offensive. If you strike the phrase (that is not even an accurate description of the average off roader) [Those] who go roaring over the landscape in these over-sized over-priced over-advertised mechanical mastodons and replace with wikipedians or bigots it remains just as (un)factual. I would strongly suggest that the quote be removed from this talk page as it would appear to be in conflict with several Wikipedia premises. Jeepday 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages do not need to be NPOV.--I already forgot 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no reason to leave an hateful message posting on a wikipedia talk page, long past the time when the discussion about it is finished. What would the motivation for leaving it be? Jeepday 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Off-road vehicle (moved from I already forgot talk page)

Please un-revert on Talk:Off-road vehicle it was not vandalism it was removal of offensive material after a long and completed talk. Removal was posted as suggestion 2 days prior to the removal.

Thank you Jeepday 12:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for removing a users talk entry just because you disagree with the users pov or find the provided quotes for discussion offensive.--I already forgot 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I also believe there is no reason to leave an hateful message posting on a NPOV site, long past the time when the discussion about it is finished.Jeepday 14:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of any policy that allows us to delete discussion that we do not agree with or is a few weeks old. All the user did was provide a quote which the user wanted to include in the main article. I do not feel that the quote should be added to the main space but I also think that users should be able to speak their mind on the talk pages to discuss such issues of inclusion.--I already forgot 15:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. It is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

Begin copy and paste

===Maintain Wikipedia policy=== A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

End copy and paste

Please return the segment (and this one too, if you would be so kind) to history with a note so it can be located again if needed.

Thank you Jeepday 03:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You mention policy reminder but you ref a guideline...two different animals so I stand by my statement that no policy backs your reason for talk page blanking of statements you disagree with. Anyway, if we are to start deleting talk pages that contain pov (or in this case a provided quote of someone else’s pov) as we do for main articles, the majority of discussion on wikipedia would need deletion. The fact that you are offended by the quote is pov so your modification of the qoute by adding bigot and then complete removal of the quote and ensuing talk by other editors would call for an rv on the same premise of keeping a NPOV talk page. I personally don’t find the quote offensive (my opposing pov) but it should not be included in the main article about a vehicle, however, the discussion of the quotes inclusion should be left for other editors to see how or why a page has taken a particular shape and the words of other users should not be modified if its a valid discussion. Now if the user had added the statement as the users own words, we may have a case for deletion but thats pure speculation.--I already forgot 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To User:I already forgot You have spent a lot of time and energy protecting this and other pages on Wikipedia. You have done a lot to exclude non encyclopedic content on the Off-road vehicle page. Presumably you have reviewed Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I understand and appreciate your work, it seems that this page is often a target for abuse and probably will be again.

The NPOV Policy applies to All content on Wikipedia. I moved the Edward Abbey quote to history per Wikipedia policy and guidelines. We both seem to agree that the quote is POV (in the less the positive connotation). The question we seem to have here is “Is POV content appropriate to maintain on a talk page (except during active discussion concerning inclusion)?” If I find the quote offensive has no bearing on it’s inclusion or exclusion that is my personal point of view. What does have bearing are the policies and guidelines that every editor of Wikipedia tries to maintain (you and I included).

If you can find any policy or guideline that supports maintaining POV anyplace on Wikipedia, or that talk pages or not part of the Wikipedia content please reference it, I have been unable to locate it. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

I have also moved both sections to the bottom of the page as neither currently being considered for inclusion in the article. I would appreciate it if you would return the Edward Abbey quote section to history.

I truly would like us to come to a well supported consensus on inclusion of POV stuff on talk pages. I personally have slippery slope visions of negative impacts to Wikipedia if talk pages have significantly different policies then articles. We are both intelligent and well meaning editors. The discussion we are having here must have happened several times before to others yet clearly we still find room for discussion. It is possible that we can add to the Wikipedia community by sharing what we learn from each other here.

Thank you Jeepday 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Talk pages are not Wikipedia articles or encyclopedic content. You have lost me on a few points so I'm bowing out of this discussion. All I ask is you do not edit other users talk entries and I will not have to rv the change when you do.--I already forgot 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? or Editing?

User:Jeepday has been accused of vandalism, see -(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeepday&oldid=88912751) and threatened with being blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is not clear where this vandalism happened but possibly he is referring to edits on Talk:Off-road vehicle?

Begin Copy and paste of the tag

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. See Help:Talk pages Basic rules for all talk pages #4. You are performing a form of vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism #19) by intentionally deleting talk page content that you disagree with, please stop. --I already forgot 00:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

End Copy and past of the tag

It appears that this is even a last warning! Apparently User:I already forgot is not familiar with the rules he is threatening with Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism

Begin Copy and Paste with bolding for emphasis

Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

End Copy and Paste with bolding for emphasis

I am kind of new but it would appear to me that the correct course of action would be to file a complaint here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct This requires two people to sign off, if User:I already forgot would like to file a conduct compliant against me and is unable to find a second, I will second it!

As evidenced by the many entries above User:I already forgot has asked for and received information on the policies and guidelines that User:Jeepday used for editing criteria to remove selected text. Also as evidenced above User:Jeepday has asked for and NOT received from User:I already forgot any policy or guideline used for editing criteria to support leaving none NPOV copyrighted (the user who posted it claims it was printed in a 1976 letter toEsquire Magazine) material on Wikipedia.

If User:I already forgot would kindly remove the vandalism tag from my user page I would consider it an appropriate action. Jeepday 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I stand corrected, User:I already forgot and I (User:Jeepday) interpreted Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines differently. User:Gurch who is administrator stepped in, in response to my posting a request for speedy deletion [7] on the Talk:Off-road vehicle page. User:I already forgot and I (User:Jeepday) both posted our perspectives to User:Gurch [8] who responded to each of us. [9] [10] The consensus is that both the Edward_Abbey_qoute and the discussion about it are appropriate to remain on the Talk:Off-road vehicle page, I accept this and offer my apologies to any that may have been offended.Jeepday 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pollution concerns

I removed this content from the article as the references provided do not support assertions made. You can review WP:V and WP:CITE for additional policy and guidelines on references. I am in no way implying that the articles content is false, and I am assuming good faith for what the editor entered in the article, but I questioned the content and did not find that the supplied references supported it. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the U.S. Forest Service, the two-stroke cycle engine -- used in many off-road vehicles -- is a potentially significant source of nonpoint source pollution or "pollution runoff," and can emit about 20 to 33 percent of the consumed fuel through the exhaust[11]. The only place I found in this references that mentioned two-stroke were for snowmobiles, part talks about air quality and part about indirect deposits on the snow (and related melt). The Forest Service is not making these claims they are citing others claims, and at least in part (Hagemann and Van Mouweik (1999)) there is only a potential risk to wild life which could not be confirmed because of a lack of data. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To address concerns about off-road vehicles that use a two-stroke cycle engine, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has created grants to improve the quality of these engines and to reverse the environmental impact in some damaged areas[12]. In 2006, the EPA also implemented regulation of off-road engines nationwide. As of 2007, every new machine (with the exception of "competition-only" machines) is required to meet the standard, or it cannot be sold or operated in the United States. The reference provided to support grants (see page 8) for "Impact" is for "Years of trespassing and unauthorized use" leading to "Sever erosion and Stream Sedimentation" Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To further address these problems and reduce the impact of older ORVs, some organizations have also begun to offer biodegradable two-stroke engine oil, and new models are required to be more efficient. Completely unreferenced. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

End of removed text and comments by Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the latest addition added by Loperco/Athene cunicularia as it’s clearly added to push a POV. I personally would like to see a section on the land use and environmental controversy over off-road vehicle use but adding statements similar to " envirowatch.com says that off-road vehicles kill thousands of swamp rats every year. Because of this, the government has commissioned a team of scientist to repair the environmental catastrophe created by illegal smog puking off-road vehicles that also contribute to 90% of global warming <ref>www.stop-offroad-destruction-now.com/page_with_no_scientific_data.htm</ref>" and the ultimate destruction of the earth<ref>www.dead-earth.com/completely_unrelated_article</ref>. It’s an extreme example to illustrate that maybe certain user should adapt the WP:WFTE idea and that consensus from both sides may help to create an encyclopedic section on the controversy instead of creating WP:POV and WP:OR issues. -- I already forgot  talk  15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to push POV, but this article should have pollution information specifically related to off road vehicles, seeing as though it is a major governmental and civilian concern about ORV use. I did not disguise the Sierra Club or Wilderness Society as scientific organizations, and I noted that the vehicles have been criticized by environmental organizations. The information presented is not in dispute. I am trying to work with you here. Also, your analogy is far more extreme than what I've included and likens the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society to disreputable, bogus organizations.Athene cunicularia 16:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was illustrating is that the article entry was added with clear anti OHV sentiments. If the section is added from a strictly non-pov opinion, it would be difficult to judge if the user is anti or pro OHV and would read strictly as an encyclopedic entry. As it stands, the best solution is to work towards consensus for an entry on the controversies surrounding off-road vehicles instead of an edit war. -- I already forgot  talk  16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• You both have some good points and we probably all 3 represent different perspectives. When I moved things to archive I noticed a common thread in a desire to create a section on Criticism. I see that the pollution section in it's last version was about more then just pollution. I am proposing we work together to build a section on criticisms of Off-road vehicles. This will be a multi step process —Preceding unsigned comment added by jeepday (talk • contribs)

Section completed and posted June 24, 2007

Build a criticism section

Step 1 - Review and accept the process and the steps. Time 10 days (starts when a second person signs up)

• Start - 12:42, 17 May 2007
• End - end Wednesday 23 May, 2007

Step 2 - Create a list of subjects to address (not points to make, subjects). I have started the list below. This is a brain storming add your ideas to the list. Time 10 Days (Time starts when 3 editors sign up or step 1 ends, you can add to it now)

• Start - Concurrent with step 1
• End - end Wednesday 23 May, 2007

Step 3 - Select some of the subjects to actually research and write up. We can pick an number later but I propose 3 as starting point, but not more then 6 or 8 as the Criticism section would get bigger then the rest of the article, we can come back later and add more when the rest of the article matures. Time 3 days (starts when previous step ends)

• Start - Concurrent with step 1
• End - end Wednesday 23 May, 2007

Step 4 - Find at least 3 references for each selected subject. I think considering that we are working online we should probably try to pick references that are available online, but if we can all agree on an off line reference that would be fine I think. Time 10 days (starts when previous step ends)

• Start - Wednesday 23 May, 2007 ( Athene, I believe we have both started?)Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• End - Proposed end 2 June, 2007

Step 5 - Using the references write a short paragraph on each subject. Combine subjects into one slightly longer paragraphs if it makes sense. Time 14 days per paragraph (could be parallel or series). (starts when previous step ends)

• Start - Wednesday 23 May, 2007 ( Athene, I believe we have both started?)Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• End - Proposed end 2 June, 2007

Step 6 - Rework the paragraphs to reach a verifiable and neutral point of view statement that is well written. Time not more then 45 days from start of paragraph.

• Start - Thursday 24 May, 2007
• End -

Step 7 - Post the completed paragraphs to the article, after we have agreement on them. If we have irreconcilable difference on a paragraph (takes more then 45 days to agree) we ask for help from another source, and put it aside until we get agreement.

• Start -
• End - Sunday June 24, 2007 Posted the changes Diff

Sign up to participate

By signing up you pledge to work with in the process that we will agree to, assume good faith and work towards an featured article quality product.

• Signing up, I agree to always do my best to play nice Jeepday (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Athene cunicularia 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Place to discuss the steps and process

• Thanks for teaming up Athene, do you think we need to make any changes to the proposed process? Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• No, I think it's fine. I divided the proposed subjects into categories, though. Maybe you'd be willing to do the first three, and I could do the second three? I'm a lot less familiar with the first three.Athene cunicularia 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am ok with that in general. Do you want to give it a couple more days to see if more editors or subjects enter, or just go to step 4? I am fine with just going forward. It is likely it will just be you and me and if that's the case we have worked through the first 3 steps. I am good with the first three as my half, I am thinking one or two paragraphs as my goal, I am pretty sure I can get some good reference to build from for the first two, I not sure what I can do with the third one, but I will give it a shot. Jeepday (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, the whole section should probably be no more 3-4 paragraphs total. And let's wait until next Wed. to see if anyone else signs up. It doesn't mean that we can't start researching on our own anyway.Athene cunicularia 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• It's a deal :) Jeepday (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens if consensus is not reached by the proposed deadline? -- I already forgot  talk  18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I try to think of them more as goals then deadlines. The solution would depend on what the participants decided, hopefully we do the same thing that is outlined in step 7 "we ask for help from another source, and put it aside until we get agreement". There should still be common ground to continue working on. Athene and I are waiting to Wednesday to see if anyone else would like to join, in but assuming no one else does we have agreed to and completed the first 3 steps, and are each working on step 4. If someone else want to join that would be great as well. Jeepday (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• No one else has signed up. I believe Athene and I have both started Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Place to agree to the steps

Criticism Subjects

Jeepday

• Safety of lifted 4x4's & safety in general
• On road accidents
• Illegal activities of ORV's

Athene

• Enviormental impact of 2 stroke engines
• Impacts to wild life
• Impacts to water

Place to discuss Criticism Subjects

Place to work on the paragraphs

Jeepday paragraph on Safety

SUVs are built with higher ground clearance for off-road use and have a higher center of gravity, Newton's First Law describes the conflict between the top weight of the SUV's desire to go straight while the friction of the tires on the road cause the bottom of the vehicle to move away and out from under the vehicle during a turn. Pickups and SUVs are more likely to be in rollover accident than passenger cars. Pickups have twice the fatality rate of cars and SUVs have nearly triple the fatality rate in rollover accidents. Of vehicles in the US, light trucks (includes SUVs) represent 36 percent of all registered vehicles. They are involved in about half of the fatal two-vehicle crashes with passenger cars, 80 percent of these fatalities are to occupants of the passenger cars.

Jeepday first draft of paragraph on illegal use of

This is a draft, I clearly still need to clean up the references at the very least. First I need some feed back on content, writing, etc. Am I on track for a paragraph we agree to here?

Sustainable Management of Wilderness has been the subject of scientific study and government legislation since the 1800's. Trails and off trail activities impact the natural vegetation leading to erosion and vulnerable to invasion of non-native plant species that decreases the environments ability to maintain homeostasis. ORVs cause greater stress to the environment that foot traffic alone. Some ORVs operators like to test themselves and their vehicles against natural obstacles doing significantly more damage then driving the established trail. Most operators stay on designated areas but some who do not cause severe damage. Illegal use of off-road vehicles (ORV) has been identified as a serious land management problem ranked with dumping garbage and other forms of vandalism. Many user organizations publish and encourage appropriate trail ethics some of the more active are Tread Lightly and Sierra Club. In 30 years the number of U.S. ORV users has climbed sevenfold- from five million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000. In 2002, the U.S. EPA adopted emissions standards for all-terrain vehicles that "When fully implemented in 2012...are expected to prevent the release of more than two million tons of air pollution each year -- the equivalent of removing the pollution from more than 32 million cars every year."

I'll be getting to this soon. Your paragraphs look really good. I will help you copyedit them, if you want.Athene cunicularia 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please copy edit them, I am not an English major by any stretch. After you copy edit them, I will go through and do proper reference citations on "Illegal use of". Jeepday (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the last half of your paragraph and tacked on to the end of my second. I am thinking we put both paragraphs up under the heading of criticisms (after I finish fleshing out the references formats). I still want to use the first half of your paragraph in the main article. I want to reference the whole article and make it more encyclopedic. Jeepday (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Athene cunicularia draft of ORV legislation

The United States began regulation of ORVs in 1972 with Executive Order 11644, "Use of off-road vehicles on the public lands." The purpose of this order was to "Establish policies and provide for procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands."[13] Since that time, the number of U.S. ORV users has climbed sevenfold- from five million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000.[14] In 2002, the U.S. EPA adopted emissions standards for all-terrain vehicles that "When fully implemented in 2012...are expected to prevent the release of more than two million tons of air pollution each year -- the equivalent of removing the pollution from more than 32 million cars every year."[15] [16].

This is what I have. Maybe you can help me to implement it into your paragraphs. I believe that you covered a lot in your research, and I'm happy with what we have. Let me know what you want to do from here.Athene cunicularia 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, let me think on this a little. I am thinking the first part of your paragraph might go better as part of the main article. I also added the EPA.gov reference to your last sentence. Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Place to discuss the paragraphs

(we might actually need one for each of the paragraphs)

Jeepday paragraph on Safety

Ok, I got this together. I pretty much combined all the safety stuff. I feel pretty good about this paragraph. But I realize it has room for improvement, so if you have thoughts please share them.

That looks really good.Athene cunicularia 13:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeepday paragraph on Illegal activities of ORV's

I did not really find any good references on this yet, But I did have an idea for another approach that I have not tried yet. If you have good references let me know. If you look at the article Spray painting as a model for addressing vandalism by misuse of something, it gets one short sentence "One of the applications is graffiti"

• Not sure I can do a paragraph in ORV about vandalism with out violating WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, I am just not finding any comprehensive studies that don't push against WP:NPOV, I was able to find reference to support Vandalism on public lands that includes destruction caused by illegal activities of ORVs, and the article Vandalism is clearly lacking a section vandalism to public lands. Don't get me wrong I am not saying there is not stuff out there, there is lots, it's a hot topic for discussion two sides arguing, but I did not find facts that would allow people to form their own conclusions. I was going to do a write up on the topic, so the issue could be addressed and references to both sides, but I was not able to find where anyone even examined the topic without taking sides. what I found to date is here [17] if you have ideas or references please let me know. Jeepday (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some government studies about illegal ORV use on public lands. Most of it deals with ORV users illegally creating their own trails, etc., but there probably isn't anything about vandalism in the general sense. There probably would be little way to discern intentional vandalism by ORV users vs. your average vandal, even though willful divergence from an official trail could be considered "vandalism." The best bet would probably be to focus on instances (or parks) where ORV users illegally created trails off the beaten path.Athene cunicularia 13:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Athene, That got me on a good track for finding references, I will work on more after work tonight :) Jeepday (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Content

We should try and limit this article to information about Off Road Vehicles, as the title suggests. The subject of Off-Roading and it's associated POV's should be kept in the Off Roading article.

I think that makes sense, but I'm still not sure that this article should be immune from a section on criticism. After all, aren't off-road vehicles an important part of off-roading?Loperco 15:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest criticism is confined to the ownership and marketing of these vehicles (fuel economy, urban use etc) For example should they still be manufactured when most of them are used where a car would suffice, they have poor fuel economy etc. Basically leaving out criticism that's about the act of off roading which should be covered within that article. Also bear in mind that the vast majority of these vehicles are never used for of roading Scotbotuk 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's a good approach to take.Loperco 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)