Talk:Kawasaki triple

message: It is not hard to find other pages the refer to the H2 as "king of the Streets". None of them are the kind of journalistic source I'd prefer using but I may make the argument that taken together they are enough. Keep in mind, this isn't about a claim made about a new cure for cancer. It a commonly used phrase among people who talk about this vehicle. 
I removed a tag about asking for the meaning of "king of the streets". I didn't put the phrase there so I do NOT understand why Dennis deletes the whole sentence and sends me a message that reads " Please stop adding unsourced content to Kawasaki triple". I had done no such thing. 
That phrase had been on the page for many years, something Dennis should know because it was there when he made a bunch of changes to the page over 5 years ago, and 4 more times before October this  year when for some unexplained reason falsely singled me after I merely deleted a citation. It was there every time he has made a change to the page. Why me and why now. 
The King of the Streets was added by Djfisher22, who started this page. He added it on 27 February 2007‎. His only contributions involve this page and his last edit was December 2007. It was here for over 7 years including the 5 times Dennis made edits. I know that in itself doesn't mean it can't be challenged. But I'd think before casually removing it a couple of minutes in Google could have been called for instead of running a power game on me. 
Back on the topic, what do others think about several less than perfect sources being good enough in this situation? The thing is, I can prove there was no car or bike you could by from the showroom that had a faster quarter mile time. I've already shown there was no contemporary bike that was faster. But I would now have to research one at a time, the GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC, cars made in 72 or earlier and show that they could not go 12 flat in a quarter mile. What a ridiculous waste of time when nobody, not even Dennis is claiming it's not true, only that it's somehow after 7 years unWiki like to not ask for a source. It's highly unlikely is going to claim a car made in the whole era is faster, and in 3 years I never came across even a modified car that was faster in a street race situation. 
King of the streets. http://matmoto.com/?p=611
http://boyracer.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-motorcycles-of-all-times.html
http://mondopeople.co.uk/strokers/Pages/H2B.htm 
http://smarterxdesign.co/1972/1972-kawasaki-h2-750-mach-iv-motorcycle-motorcycle-photo-11.html/page/2
http://www.cycledrag.com/two-cycle-dream-becomes-reality
Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "King of the Streets" a title that is bestowed on a particular model, like Cycle World Bike of the Year? What criteria are used to select it? How often is the title issued? Are there consequences for misappropriating the title? — Brianhe (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: If anyone can prove that it actually had the fastest quarter mile time, then just do so. No need to talk about it, or threaten to do it or promise to do it. Just do it. Give the citation. The three links above to some personal blogs don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. There's nothing "unWiki" about asking for a source, whether it 7 years or 70 years.<P>Currently the article cites several high quality sources who all said something to the effect that it accelerated faster than "almost anything". Nobody was willing to say anything without qualification, but they were in agreement that it was at least very nearly the fastest thing off the line. Why should Wikipedia go beyond what the likes of Roland Brown and the other experts say? Only with very good sources should we do that.<P>WP:PEACOCK makes perfectly clear why "king of the streets" is not something any decent Wikipedia article will ever say without attribution. Look at the Bob Dylan example. As Brian says, if you want to quote an authority who calls it "king", by all means, do so. I support 100% saying "The bike was called 'king of the streets' by ... " if they are a reliable source, with a citation. But Wikipedia itself would never hand out that kind of title.<P>How would having the fastest acceleration even lead to being "king" of all the streets? Do enthusiasts of the Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge consider the H2 king of anything? Not by a long shot. What about 200 mph Club member? Nope, they care about top speed. What about the Iron Butt Association? King of long distance riding? Hardly. "The Streets" encompasses all public roads, and they're not owned by 1/4 mile racers. Most users of "The Streets" are going from A to B in minivans and care more about cup holders than 1/4 mile times.<P>Cycle World called it the ultimate bike for "light to light freaks" and various similar phrases have been used to describe the subculture of those who value off the line acceleration above all else. And that's great! More power to you. But calling a bike "king" because of one thing, whether it's fuel economy or top speed or endurance or 1/4 mile time is absurd, and hardly neutral.<P>So stick to what you can actually cite. I think the current state of the article is pretty good, and certainly verifiable. I have some more books I can use to expand the H2 section some more. It is close to being a Good Article, if we cooperate and stop worrying about this "king" nonsense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Look, Jackhammer, nobody is going to read an essay and try to figure out what you're trying to change. Can you suggest one specific thing that's wrong, what you think it should say, and why it should say it (i.e. what source says so)? We can go from there. — Brianhe (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. I read it. The 3 sources  are low-quality blogs which have obviously lifted the phrase "undisputed king of the streets, even beating legendary muscle cars of the era such as the Plymouth Hemi Cuda" from Wikipedia. Jackhammer, take your sources to  the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you think they would convince anyone.<P>We already have lots of sources saying the bike was really fast. What is the point of all this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I can illuminate exactly how iffy they are. Regarding this edit summary, there still isn't a single reliable source for using this "king of the streets" peacock phrase. This latest one, Two-Cycle Dream Becomes Reality, is blatant plagiarism. Even if Jack Korpela  at the cycledrag.com were decent source, it's blatantly obvious that Korpella has copy-pasted text from Wikipedia. Here is the July 9, 2007 version of the article which Korpela copied in to his blog post in September 2007. Here is the Duplication Detector showing the plagiarism.<P>We can't quote any authority who called the bike the "king" and "king of the streets" is not a fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The text at smarterxdesign.co is gibberish. It appears to be machine-generated, or machine-translated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say that one is loaded with search terms for SEO. But yeah it's gibberish and not to be trusted. — Brianhe (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: King of the Streets

message: It appears that much of the content is redundant with the existing article titled "Kawasaki H2 Mach IV" and it seems that both are not needed. Combine, they may provide fuller content.
Much of what is on here belongs on the Mach IV page. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Merging with H2 Mach IV 

message: hi to all what is it kawsaki brought out 1962 model kawsaki models why dont you talk about at all seeing as it was the first one 
115.166.48.7 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  year 1975  

message: This revert may have been a mistake or misunderstanding of the source, which says  Note that you have to click a "Continue Reading" button to read the full article in Motorcycle Classics. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all great, but I know several of us have explained to you several times about original research. You've had it explained to you that if mainstream published sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is going to be wrong too, even if you know the truth. The parts of you comments where you cite published verifiable sources are most welcome, and helpful. The parts where you tell us about your personal experiences are a waste of everyone's time. A lot of Wikipedians won't even read your comment because it's too long. Subtract the irrelevant personal experiences, and you will mostly likely have greater influence on other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion chamber vs muffler 

message: I fear we've returned to the realm of editor opinions vs verifiable published sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the essay that we should once again review. I restored some deletions based on an editors opinions, and added page specific page refer3ences for Brown 2004 and Brown 2006. Google Books has Cycle World March 1975, so I added a link in that citation. Brown said in a 2004 book that the H2 does 0-100 in under 13 seconds, and just in case you think it was a typo, he said it again, precisely, in his 2006 book. Cycle World's test of the 1974 model was 0-100 mph in 13.2, or perhaps 0.3 seconds off from Brown's "under 13" reported for the 1972. It's plausible enough.<P>Most importantly, it's verifiable. If you have a published source who says Brown is wrong, please cite it. If not, please keep personal opinions and original research out of articles. Verifiable source may indeed be wrong, but we accept them unless another verifiable source contradicts them. Not based on editor whims or attitudes or assumptions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the edit summary. Does it say my name? No. It says lowercase sigmabot III. That's not me. You're posting replies to threads from FIVE YEARS AGO and complaining that some bot moves them into the archive. Who? Or what, is User:lowercase sigmabot III? Click, and read for yourself. Go to their talk page and ask them what they do and why. Information about how all this works is at Help:Talk pages and Help:Archiving a talk page. If you're confused, go over there and nicely ask someone to explain. You're making accusations out of ignorance, blaming me for your own blunders and misunderstandings. You think I have nothing better to do than persecute you at every turn? If your coffee is cold, guess what? It wasn't me. If your favorite TV show is cancelled, also not me. Bad things can happen in your life that have nothing to do with Dennis Bratland.<P>Brown has not been "proven wrong" in any way. No source contradicts him. 
Data proves him wrong. The et and speed used in the fastest accelerating motorcycles prove him wrong with 6 sources. (one of which btw contradicts the claim that the Dunstall Norton was a production motorcycle. more on that later). With 12.0 as the standard for the H2 you'd have to making a nonsensical argument that the run was under 100 mph. Is that really the head of the pin you want to dance on?  Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, You are the one that is saying you think it's hypothetically possible the 12.0 runs used several places could be done at less than 100 mph. Nobody is claiming "joe blow" could jump on one and go 12 but the title of the page is not what joe blow can do. Why do you think that bolsters your argument? Roland Dennis books are not bibles and are overused here (again, address the fact that so many of them are supposedly on the same page of a book). If another accepted source's data contradicts  what  an editor added from a roland brown book then the reference should be deleted. The pages about the H bikes are histories and primary sources like a photo of a document are acceptable. And the document presented here shows that shows zero to well over 100 mph in less than 12 seconds. What part of that don't you understand?   the notion that sources are wrong then Wikipedia is wrong is nonsensical when the goal is to use the best information that can be found.  What is wrong should be discounted when it's proven to be wrong. I can't believe I have to make this argument. Are you saying it should stand because it's technically true? What Brown wrote, zero to 100 in less than 13 seconds, now is as meaningless as if he said zero to a hundred in less than 14 seconds, or 15, or 16. I would be technically true but of no value.Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal is not to “use the best information that can be found”. The goal is verifiability. We take reliable sources at face value, and don’t spin them or weed out whatever we find inconvenient. Your agenda on this topic is to tell the world your truth. To set the record straight, as you see it. So you make up reasons to discount reliable sources you don’t like. Is Brown overused? Not according to any evidence. It’s a claim you made up to justify your agenda. Is Brown considered unreliable? No, not according to any evidence. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please make edits based on verifiabiltiy 

message: I have restored the historic citation from industry-experts that was determinedly vandalised by  based on what I believe to be personal prejudice and a demonstrated determination to establish folklore by excluding established works and figures. It is unacceptable and breaches WP:NPOV to delete content and to alter direct quotations to include the phrase "I'm here" (so am I, but choose not to write prose, mostly).
====Recent templating==== 

*Yes - it was a direct quote, but on reflection, it was not as clear as it could have been so I have amended/expanded the context.
*Yes - this critique was/still is relevant, as it's the only ref contemporaneous with the events, and industry-experts chose to nationally-publish their scepticism that Kawasaki was promoting unobtainable performance data. To deny it is breaching WP:NPOV, sanitising WP for the sake of personal vanities. These Kawasaki-exaggerated performance claims continued with the GPz900, the GPx1000 and the faked-up bridge crossing, all of which I am working on along with 400 other things, mostly non-Wiki.
 and

* This first tagging in itself is breaching the basic tenet of WP:AGF; accept that an editor correctly-submits the correct content.John Day was a staff-writer of the feature (and others, of course) for two years at least. In that particular issue, speading over two full pages are 10 separate topics and a sporting calendar for the two months the magazine covered. The full(er) quote is:Kawasaki's own ambitious claim is that this five-speeder is the fastest and best accelerating road machine ever produced, being capable of 124 mph and 12.4 sec. for the standing start quarter mile. Impressive as they are, these figures will undoubtedly be disputed. But there can be little doubt that this machine is the most powerful 500 production machine ever built.
The above are just two of the five paragraphs devoted to this machine. I included  after 12.4 sec. due to past experience with difficult editors wanting to show they 'knew better'; despite this, Jackhammer111 seemingly did not understand that the abbreviation used was faithful to the original, nor to leave the quote alone and NOT apply vandalism to what was perceived to need correction. AGF decrees that I allow for such misunderstanding.Cycle World's own 1969 figures are 119.14 and 13.2; undoubtedly Motorcycle Mechanics were cognisant of this. Motorcycle Mechanics also has an image similar to one of Cycle World's with a jocular caption alluding to American track testing methods.Full Chat is a double-entendre, with synonyms: full bore, full stick, flat stick, Harry Flatters, against the stop. John Day, one of several staff-writers, wrote this for at least two years, preceded by Bruce Cox; around that time, ex-racer turned journalist/author Charlie Rous wrote a similar feature: On the Megga - synonyms: on cam, on the pipe, in the power band - the double meaning here is an analogy with (non electronically amplified) traditional loud hailer, with the writer figuratively proclaiming the gossip, via the printed medium.Are you with me so far? Say, "Yes, Steve".I would not use readers' letters as a citation without obvious disclosure written within, as seen in inline citations #1, 2 and 3 at Rice burner#References and at Talk:Rice burner#Historic origins, in this case to establish historic/dated use of the phrase (WP normally has modern keyword-searched examples which can only establish the writer's opinion at the time of writing - no historic value whatsoever).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing recent templating and vandalism/deletion  

message: 
*Yes - it was a direct quote, but on reflection, it was not as clear as it could have been so I have amended/expanded the context.
*Yes - this critique was/still is relevant, as it's the only ref contemporaneous with the events, and industry-experts chose to nationally-publish their scepticism that Kawasaki was promoting unobtainable performance data. To deny it is breaching WP:NPOV, sanitising WP for the sake of personal vanities. These Kawasaki-exaggerated performance claims continued with the GPz900, the GPx1000 and the faked-up bridge crossing, all of which I am working on along with 400 other things, mostly non-Wiki.
 and

* This first tagging in itself is breaching the basic tenet of WP:AGF; accept that an editor correctly-submits the correct content.John Day was a staff-writer of the feature (and others, of course) for two years at least. In that particular issue, speading over two full pages are 10 separate topics and a sporting calendar for the two months the magazine covered. The full(er) quote is:Kawasaki's own ambitious claim is that this five-speeder is the fastest and best accelerating road machine ever produced, being capable of 124 mph and 12.4 sec. for the standing start quarter mile. Impressive as they are, these figures will undoubtedly be disputed. But there can be little doubt that this machine is the most powerful 500 production machine ever built.
The above are just two of the five paragraphs devoted to this machine. I included  after 12.4 sec. due to past experience with difficult editors wanting to show they 'knew better'; despite this, Jackhammer111 seemingly did not understand that the abbreviation used was faithful to the original, nor to leave the quote alone and NOT apply vandalism to what was perceived to need correction. AGF decrees that I allow for such misunderstanding.Cycle World's own 1969 figures are 119.14 and 13.2; undoubtedly Motorcycle Mechanics were cognisant of this. Motorcycle Mechanics also has an image similar to one of Cycle World's with a jocular caption alluding to American track testing methods.Full Chat is a double-entendre, with synonyms: full bore, full stick, flat stick, Harry Flatters, against the stop. John Day, one of several staff-writers, wrote this for at least two years, preceded by Bruce Cox; around that time, ex-racer turned journalist/author Charlie Rous wrote a similar feature: On the Megga - synonyms: on cam, on the pipe, in the power band - the double meaning here is an analogy with (non electronically amplified) traditional loud hailer, with the writer figuratively proclaiming the gossip, via the printed medium.Are you with me so far? Say, "Yes, Steve".I would not use readers' letters as a citation without obvious disclosure written within, as seen in inline citations #1, 2 and 3 at Rice burner#References and at Talk:Rice burner#Historic origins, in this case to establish historic/dated use of the phrase (WP normally has modern keyword-searched examples which can only establish the writer's opinion at the time of writing - no historic value whatsoever).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent templating