Talk:Motorcycling

message: I've probably read hundreds of Wikipedia articles (or more) and am a frequent editor. While this article's not perfect, it's one of the best I've seen stylistically and for captivating content. I do suggest there be more information from an objective point of view about motorcycling culture and motorcycle laws, but in any case, keep up the good work!  Thomasmallen 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job 

message: I think this violates the rules... but .... thats was the best Wikipedia article ive ever read...
just want to give the authors my compliments...
It makes me want to buy a motorcycle...
keep up the good work. 
EDIT by same person:
I suggest maybe moving this article into more of a "motorcycle mindset" or "motorcycle culture" rather than just motorcycling.
Nafango2 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this violates the rules... but ....  

message: As indicated in another comment here, I've also read innumerable Wikipedia articles. I do believe in the importance of adequate style for an encyclopaedia article. Being an avid motorcyclist however, I find this article, which must deal with motorcycling as an activity and even basis for a sub-culture, as entirely adequate. Rather than making it something different, if anything, I'd suggest introductory text in each section and other linking text, which could clarify that each quote and each section is there in order to explain the essence of what "Motorcycling" is. An encyclopaedic article must offer the essential concepts, notions and information regarding its' subject. This article could offer more, but everything it does contain at the time this writting seems to me precisely adequate with regards to these needs. Starting by explaining what each of the included sections is there to explain might help. However, this article I believe should be or become an example of a better philosophy in terms of writing style for encyclopaedia articles in social science matters, because a true understanding in this area is derived as much from objective information, as from an in depth understanding of the social and human aspects of the area being dealt with. This last and very necessary aspect for such articles can better be achieved through metaphor. Thus the use of pertinent and very illustrative quotes and the description through them of the essence of "Motorcycling" is, I believe, best achieved precisely through the type of writing here exemplified. With some additional explanatory text and other informative sections, this could well be a very clear example of less conventional but more effective form for an encyclopaedic article. 201.141.248.79 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great eloquent words mate, so be bold (as they say around here) and do something... Pickle 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an enciclopaedic article also be captivating, interesting, sugestive? 

message: I imagine that could be an unexpected surprise/inconvenience for any motorist. I don't think it is an experience unique to motorcycling. I'm thinking it would be better in the "Escape" section (or may under "Speed"). :-) --Evb-wiki 13:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't turn this article even less encyclopedic than it is now. -- intgr [talk] 14:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cows on road 

message: I see that someone finally got around to ruining this article.  Everything old is new again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.147.93 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you are misunderstanding what encyclopedias are. You are encouraged to move the previous version to some other website and admire it there, but it's not what an encyclopedia article would look like. See also: what Wikipedia is not. -- intgr [talk] 19:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No, motorcycling isn't a "collection of encyclopedic facts," but an encyclopedia entry on motorcycling is just that. The fact that enthusiasts find motorcycling to be a "visceral, emotional, in-your-face, awe-inspiring, soul-refreshing experience" can certainly count as such a fact, provided it's attributed. Sorry, but an encyclopedia isn't the place for gushing. 142.162.76.117 (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tone tag because (a) it's been there for 3 years and nobody's done much about it and (b) the article's not that gushy, really. --Chuunen Baka  (talk  • contribs) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Tone 

message: It doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. It reads like, well, a "paean to the joys of motorcycling" that might appear in the Utne Reader or something, and is unmistakably written by enthusiasts.  Sure, it's supposed to talk about the benefits of motorcycling, and a little of this information would be appropriate, but it needs better attribution and balance - unless someone wants to rename the section "Purported spiritual benefits of motorcycling".
The introduction mentions that motorcycling is an economical and effective mode of transportation, but this is avoided in the Benefits section to make way for the paean.
* "Despite the fact that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance speaks very little about motorcycle maintenance, or Zen, it was really inevitable that the two would be linked." This is blatantly POV. I've edited it.
And the fact that a bunch of motorcycling enthusiasts below are raving about the article is not surprising. But there needs to be some more objectivity. 142.162.76.117 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Benefits section is unencyclopedic 

message: Can somebody help out with this one? Paradoctor (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a common term in motorcycling, if it's a term at all. tedder (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scratching 

message: It's nice to have photos like this, but we need a better photo of it- nothing distracting in the foreground. Can anyone help? Likewise with this photo; it's good, but I think it would be even better if it showed a more unique aspect of being on a motorcycle- for instance, splitting through Asian traffic. tedder (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the blurry bikes in the foreground help create context. I actually chose that photo above several other similar ones we could use  just because I like the foreground action. But maybe that's just my taste.<P>Here are some interesting ones: . This is a nice POV. Whole series w/ more POV.<P>I'm not totally obsessed with photos from developing countries, but I think it's easy -- too easy -- to find nice shots of upper-middle-class Western males on expensive BMWs and Hondas and Harleys, or else trendy vintage bikes, out enjoying their copious leisure time on tour or at a rally. But a whole page of only those guys? No. So I'm only trying to mix it up with people whose motorcycles play a different role in their life than a midlife crisis toy.<P>Anyway, yes, better photos are most welcome. --Dbratland (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I just added one] of those to Lane splitting, but it's a pretty amazing photo and might be useful elsewhere, or one of the others there could be moved. --Dbratland (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, it's nice that POV is sometimes a good thing, eh? Some of those are excessively arty for my (encyclopedic) tastes. Some of these are really nice: , , . Going back to the western RUB lifestyle, this might replace a few to give the motorcycling experience. tedder (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a couple substitutions. I still kind of like the previous lead better. --Dbratland (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-Western photos 

message: Can anyone explain why Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus is important enough to be linked to here? What are readers going to learn if the click on the link other than the fact that the Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus exists? 
Two of the most important news articles that touch on this caucus are the NYT and the CSM, both of which are basically mocking the powerlessness and irrelevance of the vast majority of these some 250+ caucuses, including the motorcycling caucus. As far as I can tell, the Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus hasn't achieved enough notability to even exist on Wikipedia according to WP:ORG. There hasn't been a single news article or book specifically about this caucus or asserting that it matters, and no sources assert that the caucus has ever done anything of any importance. If it has, please cite. --Dbratland (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the memes lately because of Gabrielle Giffords's involvement; she did a Ride to Work Day video last year, so I've seen at least one part of the moto community putting extra support behind her right now. It may not belong, but mind you it was added in good faith. tedder (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems important. Giffords's involvement seems to make it notable. And who doesn't support motorcycle safety? But when I look a little closer I'm not seeing why the caucus should be given prominent treatment. --Dbratland (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason for highlighting it in this article - especially as it is already linked from Motorcycle safety. It's an organisation in one country. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Motorcycle Safety Caucus 

message: I set up the multiple image group at right with the intent of using it at the "Motorcycling" section of Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling to illustrate the diversity of motorcyclists and motorcycling, but I thought it might be better to add it here, at the beginning of the article.  Would there be any major problems associated with doing this, or any objections to doing this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Something other than the outlaw bikers. These people are more typical. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that alternative image, otherwise I'm OK --Biker Biker (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the image group to include the suggested alternative to the outlaw bikers, although I haven't removed the outlaw bikers.  One very good thing about the included image is that it shows road riders wearing helmets. Without it, the only riders wearing helmets in the group were the enduro riders, and that disturbed me a bit.  How is it now? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. The guy has a jacket with a swastika. It places far too much emphasis on a very narrow subculture: Mostly American, or Americanophile, mostly white male, mostly centering on the culture of the 1960s (baby boomers). And mostly dealing with veterans and ex-cons with PTSD, alcoholism and a need to belong. Outlaw motorcycle gangs have very little to do with motorcycles, very little to do with riders under age 50, and very little to do with the multi-billion dollar global motorcycle and motorcycle accessory industry, or with motorcycle sport. If this were a collection of 10 or 20 pictures, then one of them could appropriately deal with outlaw bikers. But in a section of only 3 or 4 images, including them, and at the top even, is a terrible distortion. If the subject were "how the media presents motorcycling" then yes, outlaws go right at the top. But the media likes sex and violence and drama -- I wouldn't use the media's priorities to for an encyclopedic view of being a police officer or a doctor or a soldier either. Movies and TV shows about police and doctors and soldiers focus on the exciting part and ignore the dull reality.<P>The main real-world effect of outlaw bikers is their influence on motorcycle fashion, and the smiling group photo in fact includes some normal riders who have elements of outlaw style, so that's well covered too.<P>If you want to use four photos that cover a wider range of the diverse kinds of motorcyclists, I'd add one with a utility rider, such as police or fire.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible addition to the article? 

message: I've been riding bikes in the U.K. for 30 years and I have Never heard the term Spannering.......  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.150.220 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spannering? 

message: I stuck a big "improve" box at the top of this topic page as this article really needs help. Is anyone else motivated to chip in ... especially given that "motorcyclist" also forwards to it too?
What comes to mind as missing? 
*Sports,
*the industry, 
*motorcyclists in the media/popular cultural, 
*clothing and fashion, 
*some statistics of bikes sold/used, 
*demographics of ownership, 
*international overview, 
*role played in economic development etc
It is in pretty bad state right now. Shouldn't it be like a flagship or gateway to other motorcycle related topics?
BTW, reading above; a) yes, "spannering" is a most certainly a commonly used term in the UK just as wrenching is in the USA, and b) yes, "scratching" is also commonly used for going round corners fast. No references at hand but I use both. --Bridge Boy (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we import some of the content here Motorcycle#Social_aspects and slim that section down to a summary? --Bridge Boy (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help ... 

message: I do not think the worldview tag is needed. But I want to add something about South Africa. Now SA is nota "developed country" like USA and UK. But because of the higher than normal distribution of wealth and with good roads, good infrastructure bikers thrive. Even in the townships, I have some photos i have taken of huge biker groups in the "poorer" townships where, despite not all being rich, they still do hardcore biking. Actually people of all economic backgrounds come together and bike. I think sourcing content like this would then justify removing the worldview tag.--Inayity (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your point at all. The reason for the globalize tag is that this article, like most of the motorcycling articles and most English language sources, focuses on motorcycling in the US and Europe in the post World War II era. So it treats motorcycles mainly as a form of recreation, or as a subculture. It doesn't acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of people in the world who ride motorcycles do so because it's the only form of motorized transportation they can afford. They have never given a thought to Marlon Brando or black leather jackets or motorcycling as an identity. They just need transportation and a car isn't an option. They are in the same situation US riders were in prior to WW I. See the 20 or so sources and quotations I listed above in the Community section. I think the  tag needs to come back until this substantial gap in the article is addressed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand this issue in general but the article does mention this point. There is also the issue of in the Western World people write about these things more than in say Congo. Obviously the language barrier means we cannot sometimes read all the facts about biking in India. But I do not think the tag on the entire article is justified, maybe on certain sections. The point of a tag is ultimately to get a discussion going and to remove it with a fix,-- since 2012 no fix. What is the soln?--Inayity (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Every section of the article should cover how motorcycling is experienced by more than half the people on Earth, so the problem is with the whole article. There is no arbitrary deadline for removing maintenance templates. As long as the problem exists, the article should remain tagged. It has been discussed before and sources do exist. It's simply a matter of doing the work. It's not an easy thing to fix so nobody has done it yet.<P>One first step would be to move all the material related to social issues from Motorcycle to Motorcycling, in particular the Demographics section, as discussed at Talk:Motorcycle#Re-sort contents with Motorcycling article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldview issues 

message: The safety part of Motorcycle should be moved to this article, (Talk:Motorcycle). I see that there are many references to the Hurt Report, which is from 1981. I think it is wrong to mix findings in this ancient report with never riding manuals etc. I question that quotes like "The latter is more commonly caused by operating a motorcycle while intoxicated" is up to date. Can the new safety section in this article be done without references to this old report? Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Hurt Report for the explanation. It's really the only high quality motorcycling safety study ever done in the US. Many people think this is a travesty, and there have been efforts to try to remedy the situation, but so far is mostly foot dragging and hot air. Note that the MAIDS report is more recent, and in Europe, but it uses the same basic methodology and it has not contradicted any of the basic findings of the Hurt Report. If you read any of the most respected safety experts, such as David Hough, you'll note that they still consider the Hurt Report's conclusions useful and relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't move anything from Motorcycling to Motorcycle safety for the sake of avoiding redundancy. Summaries of sub-articles in main articles are supposed to be redundant.<P>The safety section now is adequate as far as it goes, but it only coveres the US and Europe. Broader coverage would be better if we had the sources. Most of the world's motorcyclists are in the developing world but we ignore them due to lack of good sources.<P>The error I mentioned at Talk:Motorcycle is repeated here: it compares motorcycling to cars on a per-mile traveled basis, but then says motorcycling is safer than horseback riding on a per-hour basis. The first is related to transport: I have to go X miles; how should I get there. The second is as recreation: I have X hours for recreation, how should I spend it? How you frame the question determines what is "more dangerous". An airplane is safer than a car for a 300 mile trip, but a car is safer for a 1 miles trip, because most of the risk in flying is in the takeoff and landing, but if that risk gets amortized over hundreds of miles and it becomes safer than cars. It should be rephrased to not assert what is "more dangerous" or "less dangerous". Instead state the actual comparison being made: risk per hour without making an editorial judgement of danger. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at it now. I found a better source for the leisure activity numbers, and I removed "more dangerous" etc., ppl can figure out for themselves. It's a bit messy to read, though. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety, hurt report etc. 

message: ===Strange paragraph===
I moved this in here from the article:
As the restriction of mobility is common element in oppressive circumstances, motorcycling is also a significant tool of mobilityLadies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls: Gender in Film at the End of the Twentieth Century. Murray Pomerance. SUNY Press, 2001 and a symbol of independence, adventure and self-reliance.The Wright stuff. Young, Robert. American Motorcyclist, Aug 1997
What does this mean, I don't get it at all. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: General cleanup

message: I moved this in here from the article:
As the restriction of mobility is common element in oppressive circumstances, motorcycling is also a significant tool of mobilityLadies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls: Gender in Film at the End of the Twentieth Century. Murray Pomerance. SUNY Press, 2001 and a symbol of independence, adventure and self-reliance.The Wright stuff. Young, Robert. American Motorcyclist, Aug 1997
What does this mean, I don't get it at all. Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange paragraph

message: I moved the Popularity-stuff over here from Motorcycle, but since I moved stuff around, some of the inline citations might not be placed next to their original text. Atlesn (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: References in Demographics

message: I'm not sure about the helmet cam video that was just added by . It might be good to have a video in principle, but this one a) has no narrative (the sound seems to be wind noise only) and b) doesn't actually show the motorcycle being ridden. Because of this, it misses a chance to show some dynamic situations in a way that a reader could comprehend. Any other contributors want to give an opinion here? - Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd love something that would explemplify the experience of motorcycling. I picked through Commons and found that one (here's a search for videos with the keyword "motorcycle" I used). If a better example can be found, or if folks don't think this adds anything to the article, I'd love some additional thoughts. Thanks  for starting a discussion. If you're curious, I was inspired to add a video by the recent addition to the article on Dance. Can you believe we've never had a video showing anyone actually dancing‽ :) Ckoerner (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is certainly ironic. Maybe  will be happy we are using more of his video tech now. We are so constrained by the traditions of conventional written media here, when we should not be. - Brianhe (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  River-POV video 

message: RE: Citation needed. The Demographics section begins with a summary of the sub-sections that follow. since it goes into a lot of detail and covers several kinds of information in different times and places, an introduction to give an overview of where it's going is helpful for the reader to follow along. The intro repeats facts, in summary form, that are given in greater detail, with citations, in the sub-sections that follow. This is why there are no citations. One could take all the footnotes from each sub-section, and plop all of them after the into, creating a list of 8 or 9 footnotes. But do we really want that, or needed it? If anyone reads the intro and is surprised or skeptical, the thing to do is read on. It's all there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed in the Demographics intro. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Motorcycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219053551/http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200603/000020060306A0040069.php to http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200603/000020060306A0040069.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081018195221/http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/policing/organized_crime/FactSheets/omg_e.asp to http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/policing/organized_crime/FactSheets/omg_e.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222072041/http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2004/document/cisc_2004_annual_report.pdf to http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2004/document/cisc_2004_annual_report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motorcycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006080251/http://www.yamaha-motor.com.ph/racing/yamahagp2014/yamahagp5-1stleg-starosa.html to http://www.yamaha-motor.com.ph/racing/yamahagp2014/yamahagp5-1stleg-starosa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608102241/http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/06/survey-motorcycle-and-scooter-owner-satisfaction-owners-are-very-satisfied-with-their-bikes-video.html to http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2010/06/survey-motorcycle-and-scooter-owner-satisfaction-owners-are-very-satisfied-with-their-bikes-video.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)