Talk:Honda S2000/Archive 1

message: I reverted the the small footnote on the different tyres found on the AP1 and AP2 models. The extra info is unnecessary, I feel the one sentence in the main text covers it well enough. Also the 2nd person tone was extremely unencyclopedic. Zunaid 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor revert 

message: I've reverted the article to the last version by Russbot (with minor edits) for two reasons:
# As repeatedly mentioned here by others, the article had an unduely lengthy (and IMHO unwieldy) Criticism section, which does not agree with WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is unnecessary (and not good encyclopedic style) to quote every particular critic verbatim, nor is it necessary to mention the torque and other output figures of competing vehicles (surely this info belongs in articles on those particular cars?). It is enough to mention the shortcomings of this car. The rewrite IMHO captures the essential criticisms (with a single reference that encapsulates everything) in a manner that is consistent with the content and style of the rest of the article and simply "flows" better when read in its totality.
# The incremental changes made by the anon IP (RPM figures etc.) need to be referenced, hence have been reverted for the time being. Zunaid 14:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the critics are quoted is because another editor objected to the use of "weasel words" - e.g. "some critics said..."  You can't have it both ways.  In any case, the criticism section is staying.  Any attempts to remove it or water it down will be reverted.  The section does not in any way contradict the "undue weight" recommendations.   --SpinyNorman 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Revert 

message: Hi, sorry about the references, I've tried to sort them out, but there appears to be a software problem. Looking at the article using via the history, the most current version appears ok, but looking at the article normally and there's repetition of reference 5. Addhoc 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rebooted my computer, which appears to have cleared the problem. Addhoc 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm going to bring this revert war to arbitration at the suggestion of User:Jsw663.  Interested parties may add to or remove themselves from the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. — AKADriver ☎ 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert, but don't you first have to go through other stages including mediation first? Addhoc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested mediation and was pointed to arbitration by a mediator.  There was also a request for comment (see above). — AKADriver ☎ 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Addhoc 14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I think Jnbwade69's comments and SpinyNorman's response to it, as well as SpinyNorman's virtual paranoia in maintaining his version of the Honda S2000 page, as well as reviewing SpinyNorman's history (of having been blocked before through violation of the 3RR rule) has led me to do the very rare thing of bypassing what looks to be fruitless mediation (which has been tried before anyway - see this entire page) and let the arbiration committee impose further sanctions, should they think it warranted.  The mediators can only mediate when both parties are willing to compromise. Jsw663 17:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Is there a reference to indicate which motoring journalist voiced the criticism in the following sentence?
:"Changes to the 2004 model brought a revised suspension and a lower redline (lower redline and 2.2L Engine initially on US model only). This triggered some criticism from those who saw the original 9000 rpm redline as a key selling point."
If a reference can't be found, I would suggest the sentence would have to be removed. Addhoc 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove the sentence that doesn't have a reference tomorrow, unless anyone provides a citation. Addhoc 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9000 rpm redline 

message: There's a lot more sales information at the Honda news site then what is posted.  I've collected the following and would like to add it to the sales section.
Model Year	Total US Sales for the S2000
1999      	3400
2000      	6797
2001      	9682
2002      	9684
2003      	7888
2004      	7320
2005      	7780
2006 thru july:4288 (2005 at july: 4989)
:All numbers are available at: http://www.hondanews.com/CatID1007?html=sales.html
-RedruM 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, go ahead and add it.  --SpinyNorman 04:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just when I'm starting to think, hey maybe this Spiny guy isn't all bad, you use this in your arbitration.  That is really contrived.  You are making me feel icky. RedruM 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem?  Do you think I agreed with you because I was in arbitration?  I agreed with you because you were right.  Excuse me for using an example of me agreeing with someone because they're right as evidence that I'm not a contrarian.  --SpinyNorman 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timing was damning, and made it appear that you agreed so that you would have evidence for arbitration.  Can you see how I would think this? RedruM 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for what it is worth, that's not why I agreed with you.  As I said before, I agreed with you because I thought you were right.  I suppose if we wanted to get really paranoid, I could assume that you planted this thing about the sales figures (instead of just adding the clearly documented and uncontroversial sales information to the article) in the talk page to bait me into disagreeing with you on the assumption that I would object to sales figures because they somehow reflected positively on the car.  You could then go to the arbcom and say "See what a loonie this guy is?  He even objects to reporting sales figures!".  However, the truth is that I don't object to saying nice things about the car.  I've said more than a few myself.  I think the engine is an awesome engineering achievement.  In a perfect world, I'd like to see them build a "GT" version of the car with a slightly longer wheelbase to allow 2+2 seating, a gearbox with all-new ratios and an "F30C" engine (basically an 3.0 liter, inline-six version of the F20C that retains the 120 bhp/litre and 9000rpm redline of its little brother).  As good as the exhaust note of the F20C is at full-chat - can you imagine the snarl of a straight-six version?  For sheer aural pleasure, it would blow anything from Maranello into the weeds.  --SpinyNorman 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't about positive or negative aspects about the car, Spiny.  It's about whether the page informs in a NPOV / encyclopedic manner or not.  Moreover, I do not 'call' you 'paranoid' without backing it up with evidence of your actions, but if you think this alone is more powerful than any evidence to refute my 'statement of evidence' on the Evidence page of the ArbCom case (rather than just by argument), then I guess the evidence I fished out quite literally speaks for itself.  Jsw663 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's EXACTLY what this "dispute" is about...  reporting both the positive and negative aspects of this car as described by automotive journalists despite the attempts of a handful of self-appointed censors to prevent this.  As for your attempt to excuse your earlier rudeness in referring to me as paranoid...  What "backing up" did you do exactly?  In both examples, you were just blowing hot air.  I mean, put it another way, if someone you, as a purely hypothetical example,  an "ignorant asshole" and backed up their claim, would you accept that description?  As for the so-called "evidence" on the arbcom page, if I were you I'd be embarrassed that the cabal couldn't actually support any of their claims.  This is just petulant time-wasting on their part and I'm saddened for them that they don't have anything better to do that waste the arbcom's time with their fact-free rants.  --SpinyNorman 06:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This ArbCom dispute is about whether your intolerance towards others' opinions and whether your "authoritative opinion" is acceptable.  Other editors have already agreed on a shorter criticism section which is not just written by you, thus this dispute is not about whether the negative as well as the positive aspects of this car are being reported.  Not for one moment was I making excuses about calling you paranoid either.  Unlike you, I am not calling others ignorant and uneducated when they don't completely agree with your opinion.  Nor do I call them hostile (as you alleged of RedruM), allege others have an agenda or work for Honda, or call anybody else's edits censorship, then just later in the same statement dare to claim that debate and controversy are good things when you so obviously don't apply the same principle for yourself.  Is only your opinion on car-related articles relevant whereas others' are inferior or unknowledgable?  I called you paranoid because the only other people who so perfectly revert any page / talk page within 24 hours are those who engage in 3RR violations, as evidenced on your own talk page an increasing number of times as this ArbCom case continues.  A mediator's job is to ensure there is compromise, but the only one not compromising is you - and after perusing your user talk page, I noticed this behaviour is not unique to the Honda S2000 article either.  Last but not least, my evidence page actually contained evidence of your own quotes (ie factual), which support my assertion.  What 'evidence' have you used to support yours?  Note I am encouraging you to defend yourself better here using solid evidence.  If you think character assassination is the only way to vindicate yourself, then I'm sure the ArbCom will make a more appropriate and more importantly, enforceable decision.  Jsw663 09:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the arbcom dispute is nothing but the actions a handful of petulant fanboys who resent my insistence that they not be allowed to censor legitimate criticism of the car from the automotive press.  You can try to dress it up in some sort of noble construct, but in the end that's all it is.  There is no compromise with censors.  As for the so-called "evidence" on your arbcom page, it isn't anything of the sort.  The only evidence on that page is that a handful of whiners can't handle the truth that the S2000 is a fine car in many ways but not without its faults.  And for the record: I haven't called Redrum "hostile".  I don't call people "ignorant" or "uneducated" (except for the anonymous troll from Texas, but even then, it is just my opinion). I don't claim that anyone here works for Honda.  You can continue to try to twist my words, but in the end, that's all you're doing.  --SpinyNorman 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me ask you again: when others edit your criticism, it's censorship, but when you edit others', it's not?  My evidence was merely requoting your very own statements.  If anything, Addhoc has argued for your case more strongly than you have for yourself (by presenting actual counter-evidence rather than just unprovable statements).  Moreover, you need to learn to control yourself on constant reverts.  If you can't learn the 3RR rule properly, you will not be welcome on Wikipedia.  Thankfully an admin had the common sense to extend your latest 3RR ban to a week! Jsw663 09:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales Numbers 

message: Zunaid, although I am not a fan of Spiny's behavior, is it a wiki policy that we exclude criticism that has too 'high a level of detail'?  The BBC is definitely a reliable source, and I don't quite see how comparison with so many other cars is necessarily excessive detail.  However, what that paragraph definitely needs is a FULL CITATION / source / reference.  Jsw663 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt the BBC is a reliable source, but Top Gear is does not represent the views of the BBC. It's a car entertainment program, and as such could be syndicated by just about any TV channel (in fact Jeremy Clarkson frequently critises the BBC in the program....often pointing out "the unique way in which the BBC is funded" as a euphemism for Top Gear not being allocated enough money by the corporation). "Level of detail" is not a policy, its a guideline (I can't remember which exactly, there are far too many guidelines as it is). IMHO an encylopedia should give an "arm's length" treatment of a subject in a cold and dispassionate (read "neutral") way. This article is slowly being turned into a car review, a point I made in the arbitration case. Read the criticism section and see if you get what I'm getting at. There is more mention made of OTHER cars than there is of the S2000 itself. 
Citing the car's performance in one particular car program (among hundreds of car programs around the world), based on its lap time on the particular circuit used by that program, gives too much prominence to that one result in comparison to the general corpus of reviews out there. It is also selective use of material (as Spiny has been prone to do before - see the Pistonheads debate above). Jeremy Clarkson (who is as notable as Top Gear itself) is a HUGE fan of the car (and has given it is good review on Top Gear), which has also won the Top Gear viewer survey two years running (another factoid which I removed from the article way back when for giving too much prominence to a viewer survey on a car program in relation to motor industry awards). Zunaid 13:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC source