Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving some content to [[off-roading]] 

message: I agree that criticism from environmental groups should be included, but using obscure sources with outdated references   looks like the changes are made to fuel or back political debates over land use issues.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)
thread_title: Criticism of off-roading

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Off-road vehicles in pop culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? or Editing? 

message: 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  on the Talk:Off-road vehicle page.   User:I already forgot and I (User:Jeepday) both posted our perspectives to User:Gurch   who responded to each of us.    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)
thread_title: Consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 www.stop-offroad-destruction-now.com/page_with_no_scientific_data.htm" and the ultimate destruction of the earthwww.dead-earth.com/completely_unrelated_article. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pollution concerns

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  No problem. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Build a criticism section

message: 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)
thread_title: Sign up to participate

message: * 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)
replies: text: What happens if consensus is not reached by the proposed deadline? -- I already forgot  talk  18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Place to discuss the steps and process

message: ====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. page 20 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. page 6  Most operators stay on designated areas but some who do not cause severe damage. page 22 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  No problem. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Place to work on the paragraphs

message: 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. page 20 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. page 6  Most operators stay on designated areas but some who do not cause severe damage. page 22 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Jeepday first draft of paragraph on illegal use of

message: 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." Since that time, 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." .
::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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  No problem. Thanks!Athene cunicularia 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Athene cunicularia draft of ORV legislation

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: References

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Place to discuss the paragraphs

message: 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)
thread_title: Jeepday paragraph on Safety

message: 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  if you have ideas or references please let me know. Jeepday (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Jeepday paragraph on Illegal activities of ORV's 

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