Talk:John Forester (cyclist)

message: I'm deleting this statement for being not NPOV and without basis:
:Forrester's outspoken resistance to dedicated bicycle paths ( see Forester Web Site) contributed to the failure of American cities to build bicycle infrastructure that is common in Northern Europe.
The referenced page on Forester's website does not even mention the term "path", so it does not serve as evidence for his alleged "outspoken resistance to dedicated bicycle paths".  Even if such information could be referenced, a correlation between it and the "failure" noted is not established either.  There are many other factors that are arguably much more significant in why there are no more segregated bicycle facilities in the United States, that have nothing to do with Forester.
Ironically, Forester is currently very busy trying to reverse a series of court decisions in Los Angeles that have found in favor of municipilities treating dedicated bicycle paths as wilderness trails in terms of their responsiblity to keep them maintained and safe up to bikeway standards.  The City of L.A. is arguing that bicycle paths are not like roads or sidewalks where the City is liable for accidents caused by improper design or maintenance, but they are like wilderness trails where all users use them at their own risk.  Once again, Forester is acting in the true interests of cyclists, while his opponents continue to misunderstand him.  --Serge 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The bicycle paths he oposes are not the common in Europe, they exists but are not common. The common one are more making shortcuts or letting bicycles through cut of streets. (Just now there is a drive in Sweden to allow riding against the one-way direction (signposted so that you and cars now about the permission) where there is enogh space.Seniorsag (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  resistance to dedicated bicycle paths? 

message: This is not encyclopedic-standard writing:
"Just as his father spent his entire life sneering at the foibles of the plebian middling classes, now John would dedicate his life to returning cycling to the mystic days of his troubled youth. To be continued (October 7, 2007)"
Also there is far too much detail about his personal life and his troubled relationship with his father; mostly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on a cycling advocate.  213.131.238.25 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right: fancy taking it on? ;-) SeveroTC 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point!  Would it be unfair to delete almost the entire first section?  Too bold?  17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the argument here. To make Wikipedia verifiable, we must reference claims from reliable third-party sources. The whole of the first section does not have a single reference. On this basis alone, it could be removed quite fairly without discussion. Whether the subject decided to put something on his website is irrelevant. His website may be of use as an external link, but not as a source. SeveroTC 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cut down the introduction.  It was extremely long, and used language that was one-sided and somewhat derogatory. It still contains no references.Tomasrojo 13:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two points to be made here: 1) Bold editing is not vandalism, and you should not call it that. 2) A biography runs to hundreds of pages, which is not something this article should aspire to.  You are NOT writing his official biography; are you honestly claiming that John Forester or his estate has given you the green light to write this article?  In summary, you are writing about "John Forester, Cyclist".  His triumphs and failures in the arena of cycling advocacy are all relevant; even some surprising trivia could be included, provided it was kept to a minimum.  His extended family is almost completely irrelevant.  You also should aspire to write in neutral language.  You are signally failing to do this.  I can tell from your style of writing that you harbor some resentment towards the man.  This is not the place for you to work that out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasrojo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks to Moonriddengirl for those recent edits.  The article contains much the same information now, but with a more neutral style of writing.Tomasrojo 10:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre writing style 

message: If his father was a Smith who used Forester only as his literary pseudonym - as our article on C. S. Forester suggests - then why is his son John not known as "John Smith"?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  12:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith vs. Forester