Talk:Critical Mass (cycling)/Archives/2007

message: I recommend that this brief article be merged into the main Critical Mass article, given that the content is very limited, and Critical Ass is presented as just a variant of Critical Mass. Bwithh 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Though probably Critical Ass should just be deleted. There seems to be no verifiable information. Reference link is dead, or doesn't load. --Mattarata 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support merge (yes, per "nom"), though perhaps not into Critical Mass. I'm slightly confused as to what Critical Ass means. I suspect it's not really a variant of Critical Mass (ie, no planned route), but instead just a very clever play on words. The link on the Critical Ass page (which worked for me) says that it is "part of the City of Toronto's 16th annual Bike Week" and had a total of 5 participants; if this is the case, Critical Ass won't be notable enough to generate more than a stub. However, the World Naked Bike Ride seems to suggest that "critical ass" is more of a descriptive term than a specific ride (ie, any rhizomal clothing optional bike ride, or even any clothing optional bike ride). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need an expert. --gwc 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, Critical Ass has been merged to Clothing-optional bike rides per WP:MM (the no comment part). --gwc 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Critical Ass]] merge 

message: I just reverted the addition of a link to a forum site as a reference for the first paragraph of the last section, Reaction of other cyclists, as forum links are in the list of "links normally to be avoided" at WP:external links.  I absolutely agree that there are many cyclists out there that have negative things to say about CM, but I don't think this is a reliable reference for this.  I'll be looking for a better one. 
Two interesting sources for CM info/references that I came across today:
* a communication phd dissertation on CM and related topics: 
* a collection of essays on CM: 
These are decidedly pro-CM, but the dissertation especially has quite a variety of references that might be worth mining.  If people find useful CM sources, maybe they could add them here so others can use them in adding references to the article? Cheers, Doctormatt 05:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum and references 

message: Just for those of you who think that above incident is isolated.
March 30 - During critical mass, biker slashed the tires of a limo.  
March 30 - Bikers smash the back windshield of a van.  Chunky Rice 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More incidents in SF 

message: This section clearly reports false information about the March 30 event, though it continues to get reverted every time a change is made. "woman found herself in the middle of a group of bicyclists and tried to drive through them resulting in hundreds of bicyclists surrounding her minivan." This is crap. There is a clear video of the event and it showed no more the FIVE people surrounding the car. Also, no bike was thrown through the car's window. I believe it was a box of some kind. The source provided obviously is not credible when you can look at the video and see the discrepancies for yourself. This section is clearly biased and not based on the actual facts.
:That video is of a different incident, so of course it doesn't conform.Chunky Rice 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts with motorists 

message: There are various claims as to what occured.  One issue is whether or not the car was "surrounded".  The Bicycle Civil Liberties Union sources claim that the car driver attacked the mass.  From this perspective, the car forced its way into the mass, and found bicycles all around it, but the car was the active agent.  The contrary view is that the 
bicyclists were the active agent, and "surrounded" the essentially idle, passive car.  One perspective is as a swarm of bees attacking a helpless baby, the other as a knife piercing a yielding abdomen.  They are contrary, and each must be sourced.  Doctormatt 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I don't like how the qualifier makes it sound like the entire event (the breaking of the windshield, for example) is in contention, however.  I removed both the qualifier and the word "surrounded."  Hopefully that's satisfactory to all parties. Chunky Rice 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 11 conflict - surrounded the car? 

message: Does the article really need 5 different images of recent Critical Mass events?  They're scattered all through the article in sections that they're not really relevant to.  -Chunky Rice 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a  (gallery) could be added at the end?  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I placed one in, it did wonders!  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that looks much better.  Good work. -Chunky Rice 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that, too.  I just didn't want them cluttering up the article. -Chunky Rice 04:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General image question 

message: I removed this section today as unsourced.  I checked around the web, including the Chicago Critical Mass listserv, and found no mention of such an incident.  Perhaps I missed something, and in that case the editor can replace the section with proper citations.  Cheers, Doctormatt 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve. -Chunky Rice 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of Violent Reaction section 

message: I'm being bold and rewriting the article a bit to add cites, make it more NPOV and improve the overall structure.  Hopefully, everybody thinks the new version is great, but if you don't, I ask that you try and fix the new version instead of simply reverting back to the old one, because overall, I do think that this is an improvement. -Chunky Rice 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Cheers, Doctormatt 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking article 

message: http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/07/05/bike/view/index2.html?order=asc
Discussion from both sides. Well, three sides actually. Pro-CMers, Bike haters and Bikers who hate irresponsible bikers that they associate with CM
http://www.ebbc.org/?q=node/485
Hank Resnik, Co-Founder of the Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition critical of Critical Mass
Both have a lot of information about the conflicts (internal and external) Critical Mass causes. Not good for sourcing because it's opinion but maybe helpful for editors.  198.6.46.11 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting related articles 

message: Critical Mass protests/bike rides/pretentious jackass love-fests are controversial subject and tempers run hot when discussing it. There are many many edits and reverts of questionable nature happening constantly. Thus the neutrality of the subject can constantly be in question depending on what side of the issue you are on. I have tagged it as such. 198.6.46.11 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag is for when you have specific complaints that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. As you have not raised any POV issues I have removed the tag. —Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: So, I just reverted a change from "...so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without fear of motor vehicles becoming embedded in the mass of riders. This allows the Mass to act as a single large (or very large) vehicle." back to "so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption."  In my opinion, my version is much less POV/OR.  Thoughts? -Chunky Rice 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to start talking about how it's one giant vehicle, that really needs to be cited.  Because at most, it should say, "Bike advocate X claims that..."  As far as the bit about "fear of motor vehicles being embedded."  That's a clear POV statement, in my opinion.  "interrupted" conveys the exact same message without using emotion or indicating wrongdoing on either party. -Chunky Rice 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been about 3 weeks with no citation forthcoming.  I'm reverting to the prior version. -Chunky Rice 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corking section 

message: I rewrote/cleaned up a recent addition by Bennett Hall regarding his own 1997 SFCM experiences.  The one source given did not support a number of assertions, so I removed them.  I think other sources are needed, but I have been unable to find good sources.  This is the only newspaper source I can find, and it doesn't say much. Doctormatt 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm somewhat skeptical about its inclusion at all.  It's not about Critical Mass, really.  It happened during a Critical Mass event, but as far as I can tell has very little to do with the event itself. -Chunky Rice 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the event does give some indication of the attitude of the SFPD toward CM at that time: that they were willing to use violence against bystanders to cover up their actions against CM participants.  I think it is reasonable to have such information in a "conflict with authorities" section.  More/better sources would really be nice to have, though.  Doctormatt 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cover up?  There's no evidence of a cover up, even in the source cited. -Chunky Rice 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "cover up" is the wrong phrase.  The SFPD was apparently willing to use violence to stop a photographer from photographing SFPD actions against CM participants (thus, "covering up" their actions by preventing photographic recording of their occurence).  That the SFPD were willing to do this speaks to the SFPD's attitude toward CM at the time.  Doctormatt 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't look at the source right now, but does it actually say that he was taking pictures of SFPD actions?  I don't recall reading that. -Chunky Rice 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. "A police officer stopped a female cyclist at random and began writing her a ticket and berating her though she had committed no offense. Hall, a professional photographer, had his camera with him and began taking pictures of this scene." Doctormatt 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  That should be the emphasis of the inclusion then.  Right now, it's all about Hall without any mention of that.  And there's still no point in talking about the other unnamed person. -Chunky Rice 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnamed? His name is Eugene Hill - it's in the article and on the sourced web page.  The article says "Hill's actions were intended to preserve the photographic evidence of police misconduct that Hill believed were in the camera.."  This does address this "emphasis", as does the sentence "Hall claimed the action was to conceal the crime of assault against him and to remove him from a vantage point that may have allowed him to take photographs that would have incriminated the police."   Doctormatt 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I mentioned that I can't look at the source right now.  Regardless, the inclusion of the information in this article should focus on Critical Mass and potential policy activity regarding them.  Right now, none of the stuff you are quoting at me is included.  I'll put it in myself later, but I figured since you have access to the source, you could do it.  It doesn't say what the police might be incriminated in doing.  I assumed it was their activity towards this person.  It should be specific.  I don't really understand why you're upset at this, since at this point I'm asking for information regarding police misconduct to be included.  -Chunky Rice 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not upset. Man, I don't know what's going on.  You say "none of the stuff you are quoting at me is included" but I copy-and-pasted both quotes directly from this WP article.  I'm confused.  I assume if you have access to this talk page, you have access to the article - is that true?  It's just the cited source that you can't get to?  Why is that, may I ask?  I'll do what I can to make the inclusion more specific, but I've run out of time to do that right this second: I'll work on it in a few hours. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about the intitial incident between the police and the biker that you quoted ("A police officer stopped a female cyclist at random and began writing her a ticket and berating her though she had committed no offense. Hall, a professional photographer, had his camera with him and began taking pictures of this scene." ) is not included.  At least, I don't think it is.  I just read it again and don't see it.  That's what I think should be the focus.  That event and then the subsequent incidnet.  Right now, it's totally unclear as to relevance, in my opinion. -Chunky Rice 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, to clarify, my office has that brasscheck site blocked for some reason, so that's why I can't look at the cited source.  I do have access to the Critical Mass wikipedia page, obviously.  I just didn't want to edit the paragraph without referring to that source.  I can do so later, when I get home, if you don't have time. -Chunky Rice 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bennett Hall addition 

message: I've been looking at the history on this page and I believe there are some issues with some editors taking ownership of the page. I'm not going to name these editors but I am going to respectfully ask anyone who may edit this page on a regular basis read through the article on page ownership found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Thank you -- 71.236.147.130 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page ownership concerns 

message: An anonynous editor removed the sentence "Though it does not condone incidents of violence and rudeness, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition credits Critical Mass with spotlighting bicycle issues and aiding their efforts in advocating for cyclists." from the "conflicts with authorities" section, claiming that the citations supplied as insufficient.  There were two citations given.  The Rachel Gordon source I agree is insufficient.  However, the Joe Garofoli one contains this quote:
This seems to me to support the sentence, so I put the sentence back in.  If someone disagrees, can someone please explain here why?  Thanks. Doctormatt 01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I put that sentence and both cites in.  I don't recall my thought process exactly, but I thought the second article was just a good source to show the role of Critical Mass in bike advocacy in SF, in general.  I don't really care if it gets removed, though I don't think it was inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Bicycle Coalition comment 

message: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-criticalmass12aug12,1,7129852.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
Mainly talks about the belligerent attitude of the critical mass riders 198.6.46.11 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New LAtimes article 

message: Unless someone can show a citation of how this image is affiliated with Critical Mass, I don't see why it shoudl be included in the article. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be no citation. There are far more points of view involved than just anarcho-oid beliefs. Binksternet 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find a citation for this either. It should be removed unless it can be validated. I've participated in quite a few critical masses myself, and have yet to see this.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like I'm a bit late to the party.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarcho-cycling image 

message: uhh what? if you got a bunch of people corking side roads, calling for 'solidarity', forming 'core groups of social networks' to 'monitor bicycling needs', editing this page, THATS LEADERSHIP. maybe you dont think its 'leadership' because you arent 'forcing anyone' to do anything. but you sure as hell are encouraging, cajoling, and in every sense, using peer pressure during rides, calling people "uncool", basically, intimidating people to be either 'with you' or 'against you'. etc etc etc etc, and most of all, this is the same nonsense business-speak that the 'evil corporations' use. you want to start a revolutoin? start by speaking plain  english and stop using doublespeak and stop talking around issues and stop spewing endless tirades about how wonderful you are and how evil your 'enemy' is.
:whoever wrote the above statements obviously has some personal issues dealing with radicals in their own life, and those statements are useless. you go from speaking about some issue you have about "leadership" to slamming people for using "doublespeak", a clear attack on some radicals that you have a problem with. there is no place for that here. there IS no formal leadership, and people that cork or call for solidarity are NOT leading- that implies that the persuasion of others only serves the interests of the supposed "leader". corking serves the interests of the whole, and any riders that don't feel it neccessary to "follow" have every right not to. go join an anarchist or radical forum and post your personal rants about it there. save any true constructive work for here. Psychowontfindme (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bunch of group think BS