Talk:Critical Mass (cycling)/Archives/2005

message: I have tried to cleanup this article a bit. I have reorganised paragraphs that have been added by various editors over time to try to make the article flow better as a whole from start to finish rather than being a number of disjointed statements. I also removed references to violence at the SF 29 April 2005 ride and replaced it with a more general statement about hostility (and sometimes violence) between some motorists and riders . JeremyA 19:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup&mdash;21 May 2005 

message: "Critics, in particular the auto industry, have claimed that this is a deliberate attempt to obstruct traffic, and cause a disruption of normal city functions."
I have never heard of any comment by the auto industry itself on critical mass. Is there any reference to support this claim? If not, it is misleading and suggests a type of influence Critical Mass doesn't actually have.
mikelmaron 11:40, June 3, 2005 (UTC)
:This wording was added on 19 October 2004 by an anon editor, so there is not much chance of getting the editor to cite his/her source. Going back through the history of this article I think that the wording of the introduction has been better. Maybe we should reinstate one of the older introductions.   JeremyA 16:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of no such criticism from the auto industry.  It would be more accurate to say that some municipal authorities and police in particular have made this claim.  They have not, however, substantiated it.  Indeed, for a U.S. federal court case last year, a traffic expert created (and handily defended) a model of a Critical Mass which yielded an incremental burden of 7 hundredths of 1 percent to daily traffic in midtown Manhattan. This model assumed an unusually large ride which, unlike the actual ride, somehow stops all cross-traffic from getting through; so the real numbers would be even lower. Given that, I don't think the opening summary paragraph should assert that "Critical Mass does slow city traffic" and that the only counter-argument is a slogan (though it's a good slogan). Jym 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there evidence of criticism from the auto industry? 3 June 2005 

message: I question the validity of this claim: "However, typical laws governing bicycle road users are different from those governing pedestrians and motorists. In most automobile-centric cities, traffic law heavily favours motor vehicle use, though other users are generally more vulnerable to collision."
Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists.  Yes, there are some laws that apply only to drivers of certain types of vehicles.  For example, motorcyclists have laws that apply only to them (mandatory helmets, special licensing, splitting lanes may or may not be legal, etc.).  Also, drivers of slow moving vehicles are prohibited from driving on certain highways (typically freeways, bridges and tunnels).  And, yes, there are some laws that apply only to cyclists, primarily due to the unique characteristics (narrow and low-power) of a bicycle.  But the way the claim is written, if one did not know better, it would seem that cyclists are governed by a completely separate set of laws from other vehicle drivers, and that's very misleading.
 --Serge 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists." -- this claim is meaningless by itself. Traffic law is determined entirely by individual states. Catamorphism 01:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's implied.  But I can make it explicit if you want. "In all states, almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists."   That is, in all states cyclists, like all vehicles drivers must keep to the right side of the road (not ride against traffic), obey traffic signals, yield according to the same rules, etc.  Some states have some laws that are arguably unfair to cyclists, and there are several websites that are devoted to identifying and repealing them, but in the overall picture, these are relatively minor exceptions, and the original statement justifying cyclist lawlessness due to laws governing cyclists being different from laws governing motorists is without foundation. --Serge 16:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws governing cyclists are different? 

message: Erased the line added by 207.6.246.148 on 05:52, 19 October 2004:
This used deleted a bunch of stuff on the criticisms of CM, then snuck this line in too.  An important statement like is misleading without concrete evidence.  Either quote someone saying it or show the evidence here... PhilCheese 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable statement 

message: thumb|right Melbourne had its 10th anniversary ride this month and I went. Here's a picture. It would be great if it could be incorporated into this page. Apparently we had a turn-out of 1400 - a new record for Melb (last biggest was only 770!).
I also created a category at commons: commons:Category:Critical Mass. If free images (ie, all not-"fair use") could be uploaded at commons and placed in that category, it would be tops.
--pfctdayelise 13:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another picture 

message: I have removed the section on criticisms of the mass. These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer.   JeremyA 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the history diff link to review that removal (which I support). --GrantNeufeld 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. It's one thing to remove something that's unsourced if you genuinely don't believe it to be true. Those criticisms looked believable...Stevage 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The criticisms may be perfectly valid, but criticism only makes sense in an encyclopedia article if it is clear who it is that is making the criticism.  JeremyA 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it makes sense to you to have criticism in an encyclopedia article only if is clear who it is that is making the criticism is irrelevant.  What is relevant is if there is such a rule in Wikipedia.  I don't know of such a rule, and have seen countless counter-examples.  Try to find an article about any political or controversial figure, or any ideology, for example, that does not have unsourced criticism.  Good luck.  I might be wrong, but I think you're imposing a standard on this article that is not generally applied elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Unless you can cite consensus for such a standard, or at least cite other examples of criticism removed due to it not being sourced, I will revert the delete.  Fair?  --Serge 05:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear standard that says that sources should be cited when there is a dispute as to the accuracy of the content, whether the content is critical or not. See Cite sources. Catamorphism 05:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cite sources link makes my point.  While citing sources is officially required, not doing so hardly justifies removal of the content.  At most, placing a  tag may be warranted, but even that is to be kept to a minimum.  But an actual removal of the content based solely on lack of sourcing does not appear to have any legitimate basis.  --Serge 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RTFW: "Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page. Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper, otherwise the information should remain out of the article." (taken directly from Cite sources) Catamorphism 06:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Calm down.  A) That guideline does not apply here since the information is not disputed (only the lack of sourcing is at dispute, so far as I can tell).  B) If the information is disputed, then it needs to be placed on this talk page, and it should be disputed (the content, not just the lack of sourcing).  Or am I missing something?  --Serge 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JeremyA's original comment: "These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer." That sounds like a dispute over the content to me. He's saying that the content may just be one's person opinion. Catamorphism 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But one comment later he said, "The criticisms may be perfectly valid".  Not much of a dispute.  Whatever. I've put the comments in a new section below.  --Serge 06:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Text comes from the URL. Someone should rewrite this. Stevage 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: There is currently a vote going on at Talk:Critical mass (nuclear) regarding whether the main article, critical mass, should be a disambiguation page or about the physical concept of critical mass. Interested parties might want to join in the discussion there. --Yath 19:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article of [[critical mass]]