Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

The supposed to-do list

Response by Guy to the "to-do" list posited by Pat:

1. NPOV sentence structures (that of which is elaborated above)

   Only Pat sees any POV in the sentence structures. It is not clear to me from the referenced argument that Pat understands quite what is meant by NPOV; what, precisely, is the POV which is supposedly being pushed here?

Ironically I think the best answer to that would be for me to try and explain what NPOV means. I've already been through a bunch of the rules but in a nutshell... NPOV means something that is represented without bias or a predilection for a Point of View (POV) or ideology. One ideology is to state that power-assisted bicycle is a motorized bicycle. I miself may have fallen victim to being biased... who hasn't? (for example: I believe it makes sense to have power-assisted bicycle fall under motorized bicycle... do I agree with it. In the case of wikipedia, because of the odd debates we have had. No. Why? Because that is my personal opinion and my bias. I also believe that power-assisted bicycle should have it's own class.) But, when does bias and when does fact come into play, and when do we get all mixed up? Well, I think we can get some good incite into the answer to this question by looking into wiki guidelines on WP:Vand WP:CITE. If we follow the rules and cite our information we should have no problem and our information hopefully won't be our POV but will be that of our "verifiable sources." --CyclePat 04:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, Pat? we know what NPOV means. What you are asserting here is MPOV, which is subtly different. Your POV is provably non-neutral whereas I have absolutely no vested interest. Neither does Woohookitty or Katefan0. The statement that a power-assisted bicycle is a motorized bicycle is not an "ideology" it's the definition for the purposes of the article. We all know that you don't like it, but you seem to be the only one, and you admit that your objection is due solely to your bias, therefore it is not POV to define it as such. So like I said, it's a baseless claim. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Inclusion of video (that of which I have compared with the precedent of NASA)

   On the one hand we have a multi-billion dollar space program, on the other we have a home video of a home-built prototype electric bike taken by the builder (whose article on the bike was deleted as vanity), the level of detail being too low to show anything which is not inherently obvious (i.e. that a motorized bicycle looks like a bicycle and moves along on its own). And yet some editors are unable to see the obviuous parity between the two! Go figure...

I think that it's a little naive to judge information for inclusion by this criteria. What I was trying to tell do was lead by analogy instead of citing wikipedia rules. I could have taken any silly article. A pattented device is a pattented device. A chair is a chair. a Space shutle launch is exactly that. We are not comparing the price of the program, we are comparing the video quality that of which I think where (when you compare) quite similar. My idea was that quality shouldn't have anything to do with this. Asside: What would be interesting to see is an evaluation of WP:NPOVUW. Are we giving to much weight to a minor POV that power-assisted bicycle fall within the class of motorized bicycle? User:JzG has said that he wants this article to be a sumary of motorized bicycles. If this article is a summary of motorized bicyles doesn't that mean that we will never really be able to expand on interesting subjects such as pedelec or electric bicycles. I only say that because the past expansion attempts have been foiled by AFD and merged to this article. Now we have had this discusion arleady in the past. Yes it makes sense to have those article here, right now! No arguments about that. But how are those minor subjects supposed to expand and include video and charts, and statistics when there is a pre-conceaved idea already that this article should be simply a sumary article. I think if we looked into the WP:NPOV#giving "equal validity" we may realize that yes we can't alway put everything in. I think this may be an instance where we must decide on wheter we will need to expand the article or simply do as WP:NPOV#Making necessary assumptions says "If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own." (personally I'm indifferent where it is... but I would like the oppertunaty to add my facts to the article.)--CyclePat 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are not neutral. It's your home video (and not your information as such, either, it's a video not factual information). WP:VAIN makes it absolutely plain that the final judgment on the inclusion or otherwise of your video showing you riding your bike does not rest with you. And previous "expansion attempts" have not been foiled, previous POV forks have, which is a different matter entirely. Have you not learned from what happened with your fork to the timeline over the CCM bike? However much you fork the article, trivial content remains trivial. Put the video on your user page where it belongs. The way it works is that if a section becomes too big and unwieldy, somebody (and let's say not you, since you have such a strong and clearly self-identified agenda) splits it out into a new article. As happened with the section on laws. This is not news to you, Pat! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Verifiability of the article, which in turn put into question the NPOV sentences.

   Verifiability has gone unchallenged for ages, through many successive edits including by Pat, right up to the point where a single sentence was reverted as redundant - saying that electric bikes are increasingly popular twice, once in the header, once in the Electric section - at which point not only the claim that they are increasingly popular, but also half the other statements in the article are suddenly a bunch of POV crap with no citations and false claims all over the place. Incredible how one sentence makes or breaks an article that way, isn't it?

I think we must remain in context here. We are talking about a fairly new invention and if it is becoming popular we should be able to substantiate that. (ie.: sales in China have increase about 120%.) There is really no exuce to violate wikipolicy, even if it has gone unoticed by us once we realize it we should deal with and try to work together to make a featured article. We have been divided for a while now on this article. I know woohookitty, Katefan, JzG are avide contribitor that would love to add to this article. What is restrain us from doing so? For me it is the fact that I see mistakes, I see little things that when I want to add something I'll say, oh... look up above there is not information on that. Where can I follow up. Citations are very important and we only have a I believe 3 references at the bottom (that of which I added and which are probably no longer good because we have made so many changes. --CyclePat 05:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please make your mind up. You inserted a sentence saying that electric bikes are increasngly popular, which I removed as redundant since we already said the same thing higher up. You are now complaining that there is no proof for this. The proof is, of course, obvious to all: look in any high street bike shop in Europe or North America and you will see electric bikes. New companies are being set up, like Powabyke. Police forces are using them. They get news coverage. Giant is making them. And you still want proof? You Are Thomas the Apostle & I Claim My Five Pounds. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason: We have made broad judgements throughout the article. Examples of sentences that need verifiability and re-wording and that are probably a POV:

• (POV-rewording)"Early motorized bicycles were powered by internal combustion (IC) engines. As electric motors have become lighter and battery storage density higher, the electric motor has recently seen an increase in popularity." (popularity is a form of bias... we need to substantiate who said this as per the solutions sugested above or reword this sentence)

Early motorized bicycles were powered by IC engines, the pictures are there to prove it. As electric motor and battery techology has improved electric bikes have become more popular, both in terms of market share of all motorized bikes (very few IC engined ones now on sale) and in absolute terms (ten years ago very few shops sold them, now not only are they in almost every bike shop, but Giant, one of the world's largest bicycle manufacturers, has entered the market).

I remember not to long ago, User:JzG and I had a discussion about using photo's as a means of evaluation for the article timeline of motorized bicycles history. More specifically this seems to sugest that there was something wrong with making inferances from photo's. Wouldn' that be original research. (Isn't what this entire POV issue is about?... I am simply asking for more sources!) (seemingly I would agree with you. However, we need citations.) (Comparison: You might be interested to know that electric vehicles have existed for a while now. (I dunno at least 100 years... supposedly they where more popular the IC car at one point)... Interesting facts I present right? But where are my sources?) (asside: a movie that is out called who killed the electric car? may answer some of those question.) So back on topic. If Giant, as you say has entered the market, then why not put that information into the article? Maybe, if the key issues here are about motorized bicycle/electric bicycle popularity then we should creat a sub article that deals with that. Then again this may be mis-interpretated as a humourous NPOV equal validity (not my intentions)

There is a very obvious difference between looking at a picture and seeing that a bike has an engine, and looking at an old engraving and inferring that a machine has functional pedals which can be used for propulsion. If you can't see the engine in the Millet bike, for example, then I suggest you change your optometrist. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• (POV- reword)In countries where there is a strong bicycle culture (notably in Asia), the motorised bicycle is particularly popular.

What's POV? That Asia has a strong cycling culture? Get real. That they are popular in asia? That claim is cited, under "naming and legal status" - China alone has over 500 million bikes with 15 million of those reportedly motorized [1] That's 3% of the entire market, sounds pretty popular to me!

Wow! Honestly I'm pleased. We finally got past the first step of recognizing that there was a problem. You even found a solution for the problem. Where should we go from there? I think we need to now find a way to implement your solution. (that's if everyone agrees your solution makes sense!)(I support it!). For implementing may I sugest we use endnote? unless there are any other sugestions you would like to take from WP:CITE or something we may agree upon? --CyclePat 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. The citation you said was absent, was present in the article. Therefore there was no problem. The "solution" you appear to have identified in the above was simply proof that the stated problem did not exist. Do not delude yourself. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• (needs more support directly after that sentence) "Experimenters began by attaching engines to stock bicycles."

Have you seen the pictures of the early steam and IC engined bicycles? They are stock bikes (or trikes or quadracycles). See steam tricycle, where the name of the stock frame (a Cheylesmore) is even cited.

Yes! I started the article for steam tricycle. (actually there are presently some ideas that need reviewing in that article.) But if you are telling me that steam tricyles is a type of motorized bicycle, I'll be damned! We had previously discussed this issue, in regard to categorization (within wikipedia) and I believe user:JzG said something along the line that it didn't really belong there in "motorized bicycle". I think we both eventually agreed to that. I think it would be important ... I keep going back to this (partly because we also just talked about photo's up above)... to cite something that is verifiable or at least we could put a reference that says this is an inference from looking at the pictures from here and here. (but <eyes crossing> I'm not so sure if we would meet original research critira or not? So is it Original research or is it an assumption? Seeing the contreversy behind the article... well... I think we should get a better source than what you are suggesting. --CyclePat 05:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You want to tweak that sentence? No big deal. "The motorised bicycle has its origins in early experiments with inventors attaching engines to pedal cycles, including trikes and quadracycles." Or something. It's a trivial rewording only and does not require a battle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• (we already say what the a motorized bicycle is... unless it's Okay to repeat it) Development diverged early on into two distinct streams: motorcycles, which are powered solely by their engines, and motorized bicycles, which are pedal cycles with motor assistance.
  • (note:this above sentence may have been a POV but if you look carefully we substantiate it by immediatelly followin it with an explanation. (ie. Felix Millet's machine) This is a beautiful example of how the article should be.)

WTF??? That is the definition of what the article is about! It's what distinguishes a motorized bicycle from a moped or a motorcycle. The only reaosn for removing that would be if you wanted to then assert that the article should be merged with moped (which was rejected by the editors on both articles) to make way for a separate article on electric bicycles (which was also rejected by consensus).

No what I meant here was is it important that we repeat (from the above sentence) "...and motorized bicycles, which are pedal cycles with motor assistance." When we are already said that a motorized bicycle is a pedal cycle with..."? This was more of a question asking to see if it makes sense to remove the strike-out section. I didn't think of about the merger of this article? But is that something that pre-occupies you? If so, why does it bother you? --CyclePat 05:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is merely pointing out that modern electric bikes fit the definition of the article - something about which there is no real dispute (your preference for a separate article aside). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• (POV- reword and substantiate with "who" said this) This development appears to have been largely in order to exploit ambiguities between the regulatory framework for bicycles, powered bicycles and motorcycles - in jurisdictions where pedals were not required to meet the legal framework they were often simply omitted on otherwise identical models. (note: it appears like there may have been a source for this sentence however it was removed)

Exactly the same comment is made in moped and for exactly the same reason. If the facts are sufficiently well-established that it was stated as common knowledge in my elementary French textbook, it is unlikely that it is seriously disputed.

• (verify) and purpose-built motor-assisted bicycles like the Derny and VeloSoleX, with stronger frames and sometimes with only token ability to be wholly human powered. (where these machine built for purpose? Is there any information on this... specially the Derny that looks a lot like a regular bike and isn't that obvious)

Have you ever looked at the Derny article? There is absolutely no hinty of any dispute about this.

No but I just read through the article and started a discusion about necessary citation to support the fact about fastest bicycle. Actually when you look at the top of that article it is arguably and paradoxilly stated that the Derny is a type of motorcycle. We have made a logical assumption that this is a motorized bicycle. However I have not seen any documentation to say that. What I am trying to say here we must be careful in our assumptions. On one hand we assume that the Derny is a motorized bicycle (just like that, seemingly by looking at the picture) on the other hand when it comes to the triumph motorcycle (or what may be a motorized bicycle) we have taken great caution not to include facts or photos. I believe we have a double standard. I also believe we have added POV, which is why our general assumption should be substantiated and verifiable instead of simply being a general assumption. --CyclePat 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are confusing different issues. The facts in the Derny article are 100% correct and verifiable. a few monents' Googling is al that's required to confirm that. Citations are for situations where the facts are obscure, hard to track down, not on the web or contentious. These facts aren't. The issue of the Triumph is simple: it's a motorcycle, or maybe a moped. No way could it be pedalled any distance. The Derny is a special case: actually it is very rare for it to be pedalled, but it is inextrcably linked with the world of bicycles, not motorcycling. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I'm not arguing that these fact are not verifiable or that they are untrue. I saying that they are not cited. And according to WP:V, The policy states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.

--CyclePat 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case you have a very large job on your hands, since the vast majority of all facts stated on Wikipedia do not explicitly cite a source. Usually because they are common knowledge, or becuase they are explained in a linked article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Items must be either sourced or sourceable. If there's no dispute about an item, there's no need for a citation. Please stop; you're wasting folks' time with this. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that this rule is not respected and should be defunct? Please explain why it seems fair that we should drop this issue Katefan? Me and JzG are seemingly, slowly resolving some issues. (Though some are less apparent and some are more arguable then others) Furthermore, to answer your question JzG, I understand that common issues can be simply be stated, as Per WP:OR. However, if you read further down into that paragraph it is stated: "It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly." Furthermore, perhaps a little farsighted for our situation, it talk about the debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. "Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view." In light of wikipolicy, don't you think it is only fair that we try to have an article that is properlly cited and that has verifiable information. Our expert knowlege in the subject mater make this even harder. That is because, as you may have done a few times (such as even recently with the article Derny), you just want a type it in. However according to WP:OR (again!) the role of an expert editor... well "This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable" (I know what a vicious circle but, how fair would it be if we start breaking the rules?) May I simply suggest we try to follow the rules as best as we can and properly cite because according to NASA "A good argument puts forward a point of view that is well grounded: it has evidence to support it."^[2] --CyclePat 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside, but important, I was reading through the WP:OR#What is excluded? and couldn't help but notice that of of the list of item it says original research is if "it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms." Is motorized bicycle a power-assisted bicycle, or pedelec not a pre-existing term? Doesn't, placing pedelec, electric bicycles, etc. under the term motorized bicycle provide it with a new name and a definition? These terms being placed in under motorized bicycles would hence be violation of WP:OR. --CyclePat 02:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pat, give it up. You are the only one who perceives these "problems", and you have an agenda. You are trawling the outermost reaches of policy and ignoring what is right under your nose: that you do not have a neutral point of view - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I did a word count for "fair" in our discussion. It seems I'm the only one that has used it up to now (and approximatelly 5 - 6 times). Please, can you answer the above question. Why should we put this leave it be? (if you just want to postpone the discussion because you feal this is a bad time for you for personal or other reason, that I could understand but you are trying (again! I say again because I can remember your resistance and edit war towards even recognizing there are problems in this article.)(You haven't stated it yet, however we have seemingly came to a solution of one problem... we have decided on solution implementation however, seemingly you have demonstrated that there are some problems.) Please, I hope you're not trying to avoid the situation again. Pushing the case away at this moment doesn't really seem fair, from what has happened? Unless of course you have some unexplained reason you would like to tell me? Please, lets try solving the underlining problem not just patching it... (and please I don't need any insults like in the past saying I'm the problem so please stay on topic) --CyclePat 21:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not about fair, it's about policy. My old history teacher had a saying: "don't go expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't". I don't want to postpone the discussion, I want to stop having the discussion because the discussion in question is one where you have been told more times than I can count that what you are doing is pushing a barrow, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Sometimes life sucks, and in the grand encompassing category of ways in which life can suck having electric bikes treated in a single article on motorized bicycles is pretty small beer. We know what you think, we have listened patiently while you explain it, disagreed, told you why we disagree, and then sat back while you tried a number of different ways to get a different answer, all without success. What is not "fair" is that you have turned a perfectly decent little article into a battleground based on your apparent refusal to allow the fact that electric motors are, well, motors, principally because it is unhelpful to your legislative lobbying in Ontario. Sorry to be blunt, but that's how I see it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The fair question was directed towards you. I was asking you if you find it fair that we break wiki rules. I find it difficult to believe you know what I'm thinking, or else you would an Estein genious by now!! (<chuckles> lol, no offence I hope!) Seriously though considering, otherwise we wouldn't be here right now arguing and revert waring on issues of WP:V and WP:CITE (inherently what I believe is the root of the problem is the WP:V and WP:CITE, cross related to the fact that you believe this is a I quote a "perfect decent little article" If I read through the line of that statement it means you don't want the article to change. That can't be good or fair for wikipedia. Secondly, just because I add a motor to a bicycle does that make it a motorized bicycle? Perhaps common sense agrees with that! And I can agree with that. But if another POV on this exists, such as the legal canadian definition "power-assisted bicycle" that defines this vehicle for more than 30 million people... isn't that worth inclusion. We are inherently categorizing something that has been defined into another category. This is wrong. If it's not a motorized bicycle for 30 million people than that should be stated in motorized bicycle and that's it. We then need to give room for power-assisted bicyle to have it's own article so we don't confuse people to believe that it is a motorized bicycle. We wouldn't go and make an article about automobiles and only talk mostly about the Ford T Bird, would we? (humm... I do however see the counter arguments... dilema) Hence... I will ask again, don't you think it is unfair to break wiki rules and have an uncited article such as our motorized bicycle article? Perhaps then, once we are well sourced and documented, or at least well referenced as per WP:CITE and WP:V will we have overcome our troubles. You as someone that tends to remove citations and simply facts into to the document would obviously have trouble with this and try and make me believe I should "suck it up!" but, again... isn't unfair to break wiki rules? When you turn facts into an uncited POV you should expect that WP:CITE (wiki policy) will be brought up. There is really nothing wrong with having a POV in an article, but it needs to be properly cited. And hopefully that uncited POV won't take over other possible expansions... such as... the article of electric bicycle now being overtaken on prevented from further developement because it is stuck in the POV of motorized bicycle. The bad thing about this is that once something contradicts motorized bicycles editors such as you remove the information.--72.57.8.215 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your repeated assertions notwithstanding, you have failed to demonstrate which wiki rules we are supposedly breaking. At most you have identified a couple of paragraphs which have some minor ambiguity about them - which is easily fixed and does not require 49 kilobytes and counting of debate. I refer to it as a perfectly decent little article because it is. It's not up to featured standard, but neither is it a mess. It's a reasonably solid article which covers the subject tolerably well and in an appropriate level of detail. It does not focus excessively on any one model, technology, historical period, country or power source, it covers the history, the development and the factors influencing use and popularity, and it tells Wikipedia readers what they probably wanted to know when they came here, and maybe something interesting on top. There is no "uncited POV" in the article as I've demoinstrated repeatedly in this discussion. To take one of many examples of this supposed "uncited POV", you dispute the statement that trikes are less portable than bikes - they are it's a simple matter of fact. They are bigger, they take up more width, and it is remarkably difficult to make them fold for portability. Many airlines will not carry them, they are banned on most British trains and so on. Another example: you dispute that batteries have a limited range. They do! If you can invent one which does not you will be rich enough to buy Wikipedia and use the change to pay someone to write a series of featured-standard articles about the bike you build with it while you lounge on your private Caribbean island! It is very clear that your root problem with this entire article is the same as the root problem you have had all along: you do not want electric motorized bicycles and IC motorized bicycles covered in the same article. But you have failed to advance a single credible reason why they may not be, and multiple forks and forum shopping have failed to yield any different result. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take up my proposal to postpone the conversation. I'm taking the next several days off because I'm comming up with what maybe pneumonia. Please pray for my good health. --CyclePat 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A head up. I will probably be anxioux to put the video back in! --CyclePat 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yers, past experience indicates that you rarely do give up. I will, of course, be equally keen to remove it for exactly the reasons previously stated. Get well soon. Listen to some funky music to chill you out - I suggest something suitably Canadian like La Bottine Souriante (playing on my iTunes right now, as it happens). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• (POV - words like facilitate... for who... low center of gravity? DO NOT REQUIRE rigid frames. This need to be clarified and substantiate.)Hub motors in particular facilitate aftermarket conversion, as they have a low center of gravity and (being wheel mounted) do not require such rigid frames.

Do you dispute that mounting a motor in the frame places more stress on the frame than mounting it in the hub? If you do, simply reword or remove the sentence. There is no serious dissent from the fact that hub motors are easy to fit aftermarket as they can be mounted in a non-driven wheel without interfering with the drivetrain. Maybe that explains why I have never seen an aftermarket conversion done any other way, even after visiting an exhibition packed with them. Anyway, this is trivia: fix it or drop it.

• • (reworded to: Hub motors are an integral part of many aftermarket conversion kit. Then add example here. The popularity of these kits According to so and so... is becoming more wide spread because they have a low center of gravity and do not require such rigid frames.)

"According to so-and-so"? Have you never heard of the appeal to authority fallacy? You are taking a neutrally worded sentence and making it sound as if it is a POV! I thought that was what you were trying to avoid?

Well... I was trying to give an example. You see how hard it is to make that sentence work. It was a hypothetical sugestion on facts that I made up! As you pointed out it maybe an appeal to authority but I dought it. After reading through that article 2 times, it is my understanding that this deals with logical fallacy. If we said Judge Joe Brown says "blah blah" we are Okay! but if we say "Blah blah blah" exist because of Joe Brown... then that would be a logical falicy. (That's my understanding of it) All this is hypothetical of course. If we sat down and actually worked on a sentence or better yet found the source we would at least be able to go further into the issue of rewording. Right now we are stuck with an unverifiable fact or probably original research (and to an extreme, as ridiculous as it seems, just as if we stated something that hasn't been published!) --CyclePat 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what your problem is with this sentence. Are you suggesting that some other system is more common? Or that there is some other reason why this is common? You seem to be making mountains out of molehills here. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

*(POV- reword -usually?) Aftermarket conversions usually use conversion kits such as the Bionx electric kit or the Revopower IC kit.

How many aftermarket conversions have you come across based on doing it completely from scratch, not using a kit at all?

Well actually I have seen 2. One in Vancouver UBC and another guy that does it from his basement here in Ottawa. But that's really not the point. I was trying to say here that we should removed the word "usually" because it is pretty biased. Through-out all of history for all motorized bicycles kits can we trully say that? THe more I think about it the more this is sadly, seeming like a push or even endorsement of those two companies. We could easilly reword to something like: Such aftermaket conversions include kits from: and here we can list all the major manufacturers!!! (dunno that's my take on it... without really re-reading where it is placed in the global context of the article.) --CyclePat 04:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased? Wrong word. Push? Wrong word. It says that kits are the easiest way of doing it (self-evidently true) and names two companies who make kits, for illustrative purposes. It does not say either that kits are the only way or that these are the only kits. Yet another non-issue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that these are examples, but are we not giving undue weight to them WP:NPOVUW. Personally I think if may even qualify (at extreme) for "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." This is because I think we are twisting the sentence around here into other arguable facts. Yes! I could just shut up and let it be. But again, where would we be if didn't respect wikirules? (asside: flashback to the pedelec article) B.t.w: Since I love arguing... Why are kits the easiest way of doing it?... I would of though going to Walmart and buying already built bicycle would be the best... or going to the local CyclePat's Garage Shop and getting his Dad and him to build one for you a second option.... LOL <grin>! (<light heartedly> you know I had to put that in!) Seriously though, I didn't expect to bring the conversation into this angle. --CyclePat 03:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight does not apply. These are well-known conversions. Other well-known conversions can be inserted, if there are any, but I don't know of any. Bionx gets some tens of thousands of Googles - but like I said, nobody's stopping you from adding other significant aftermarket kits if they are significant, or removing any which you know are not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

**These hub motor aftermarket conversions include such technologies as the power-assisted kit such as the Bionx or even (fuel powered hub motor) such as the Revopower IC kit.

Pat, that sentence is execrable English. And why add gratuitous redlinks?

Perhaps you may have a better suggestion? (assides from the authographical mistakes) --CyclePat 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

*(Clarify) Portability is also compromised. (compared to a bicycle? the motorized bicycle? the tricycle?)

Compared with bicycles. Seems plain enough to me.

I agree with that. An obvious scenario for most motorized bicycles compared to bicycles however some electric bicycles are with the Heizman motor and light Lithium Ion batteries are almost as light as some regular bicycles. This discrepency should be noted. Actually I may have been off topic there. I think the issue was about the portability of a tricycle vs a bicycle. Or was it the issue of portability of the motorized bicycle vs a tricycle? It bad format to leave a sentence without any follow up. (Hence the reasons for a good WP:CITE which would help us understand.) --CyclePat 23:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to provide a citation for the fact that a trike is generally less portable than a bike. It comes under the heading of stating the obvious. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

*(This is the first time we talk about electric bicycle... should we have an example afterwards or is it good as is?) (I think we should quote who says this because there are many different electric modern electric bicycles some of which resemble and act like a MOPED going as fast as 60 km/h vs only 32 km/h for a power-assisted bicycle.) The modern electric bicycle is true to the concept of a pedal bicycle with assisting propulsion, being rideable without power.

It is not the first time we discuss the electric bicycle. The header makes it plain that the motorized bicycle as a concept includes multiple power sources, explicitly including electric. Speeds are discussed in the electric section, as is the pedelec/power on demand issue (which is unique to electric bikes, I know of evidence of IC engines being inhibited when the rider is not pedalling).

*(Interesting POV - I'm not sure if we should also present contrasting idea or perhaps it would be better to present facts to support this) Batteries have a limited life, which means that the hybrid human / electric power mix is much more likely to be emphasised than is the case with an internal combustion (IC) engine.

Not POV, blindingly obvious. The range on battery alone with current technology is substantially less than the range of an IC engined bike, and fuel for ICs can be readily purchased or even carried, whereas spare batteries are heavy and battery charge cycles are typically long.

I love your british comment, blindly obvious. Seriously though. We are stating a subjective fact that "Batteries have a limited life." What type of batteries? I've hear some batteries can last 100 or so years maybe more and are rechargeable, whereas some other batterie can only be used once and are obvioulsly non-rechargeable. Hence this is a value or opinion. According to WP:NPOV#A simple formulation we don't assert opinions here on wikipedia. (This sentence is an assertion and should be removed or properly formulated as per a few of my sugestions or by checking WP:NPOV#A simple formulation) It is also important to assert facts about competing opinions (such as the I just made about battery life... of course properly sourced and verified!) --CyclePat 23:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pat, if you can find a supplier of unlimited-life batteries I can point you the way of a ready market, especially in the sense used, which is the time the battery will run the bike for. In fact, if you can find me a battery that will run a bike indefinitely with no other power source I will fly over to Ontario and buy you a beer on the proceeds of the joint marketing deal we can sign. No battery has infinite service life, and no battery has infinite charge. This is a statement of fact, not an assertion, and needs no citation - in any case, issues with betteries belong in battery and rechargeable battery. There is absolutely nothing contentious whatsoever about the statement that batteries have a limited life, or indeed that their disposal is an environmental issue. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• • ex.: For example... such and such a model can do approx. an average of 70km (ie. BIONX) in distance whereas this model can only do (20Km).

That data came from de:Pedelec. Take it up with them.

• (POV - (remove, reword on site your source)) Electric bicycles are gaining acceptance, especially in Europe and Asia, in response to increasing traffic congestion, an aging population and concern about the environment

(p.s.: why is this concentrating on electric bicycles sudenly... what about all the other motorized bicycles in Europe - perhaps something to include)

Focus on electric because the cleanness of electric is a selling point, and because very few IC engined bieks are now sold. Marketing is specifically targeted at seniors, and many of the aftermarket trike conversions are also seniors.

• (POV - increasingly common! what are people going to think in 60 years. Add the source to solve this POV) Electric vehicle conversion – converting conventionally-powered vehicles to electric or hybrid vehicles – is also increasingly common.

Conversion of other vehicles may be increasingly common, it is also irrelevant to the addition of electric motors to trikes to help the older cyclist get up those hills. There are articles on this in Velovision, Cycle and other mainstream magazines.

• (Perhaps true... but Verifiability) Motorized bicycles' popularity has waxed and waned largely in response to local regulatory requirements (see below).

Sure looks that way to me. Review the history in countries where they are common, France for example. And look at the problems in Ontario, where they are apparently not popular at all...

• • Note: the see below is not sufficient. This seems to be an essay still (and though I agree with it, it is probably some POV I pushed in)

Edit it then.

• (I don't understand what the Whizzer has to do with this sentence) Autocycle manufacturers were well established in countries such as Britain and Australia before the second world war, but the hiatus of the war appears to have set the market back, although the American bolt-on Whizzer continued until 1962.

It's an example, Pat, showing that although it was knocked back, it took some time to die.

• • We need to explain what the Whizzer is. (autocycle)

Alternatively, we could look at the picture...

• • asside: Also note that this is the first time we talk about Autocycle's. We need to clarify this subject.

Easily done: add (sometimes known as autocycles) where we define IC engined bikes. Does not require dozens of tags on the article, it's a two-second job.

• (Though it is explained for Britain I see no proof for the rest of Europe)(verify and add source) Elsewhere in Europe the motorized bicycle continued to be popular.

No source required. It's just a word, used in the 50s in Britain. The UK motorcycle body used to be known as the Auto Cycle Union. At best it's a dictdef, for Wiktionary.

• (is this history... perhaps we could explain some more by adding why it dominated otherwise I feel, even though I agree and that this is true, that in this context it is a POV. Are there statistic to prove this? Who has said this? - remove strikeout section or substantiate. We can worry about the electric motor further down.) "Historically internal combustion (IC) engines dominated the motorized bicycle market, but most current models use electric motors.

Strike that out? You are kidding, right? How many IC engined bikes are there available in high street shops in your town? Compared with how ay electric ones? Oh, wait, I remember now - you have a regulatory issue which makes them uncommon where you live (which is atypical for the global markets). In order to make a statement like "most cars have foour wheels" it is not usually considered necessary to go and colect actual sales data for the Reliant Rialto, Grinnall Scorpion etc., and compare them with global sales data for four-wheeled cars. Nor is it necessary to do this in order to say with complete confidence that three-wheeled cars have declined in relative popularity since early days of motoring - this much is obvious form the fact that former big players n the three-wheeler market are now either defunct or (as with Morgan and BMW) making four-wheelers.

• after power source we should have a new heading called: design.

For what purpose?

• (Humm... This Powabyke site appears to be a business vanity page perhaps we should have another example such as the FREE VIDEO we have) The front or rear wheel may be powered via a motor built into the hub (e.g. Powabyke, Singer Motor Wheel)

Come back when you are selling over 20,000 units a year as Powabyke do.

• NOTE: the internal combustion engine section appears to be very well writen. Why not do the same for the electric bicycle section. (lets go hunting for different bicycle models)... Vis versa would also be applicabl such as an IC engine could also be added to any type of bicycle (which we don't say but do in the electric bicycle section in regards to electric motors.)

The electric section already contains example models, e.g. Giant and Powabyke. There is nothing stopping you form adding more models, as long as they are globally significant. Anyone selling more than a few thousand units a year should qualify.

• (NEW INFORMATION) Electric motorized bicycles are either power-on-demand, where the motor is activated by a handlebar mounted throttle, or pedelec (from pedal electric), where the electric motor is regulated by pedalling.
  • There are also some models, such as the Bionx, that give you the option to chose inbetween power-on-demand and pedelec, switching instantaniously with the push of a button or of the throtle.

This massive problem can be solved by adding the words "or both."

I won't go into "the naming and legal status" or "environmental effects"

Quite right too, there is too much on that in this article, having crept back in (or been insufficiently merged to) the section on laws.

General Solutions:

1. Place NPOV dispute on top of article. Reword NPOV sentence and support with verifiable information (as suggested above). Then remove NPOV from top of article.

   Absurd. There is no lack of neutrality. The only POV dispute is that one person (that would be you, Pat) apparently cannot accept that electric and IC motorized bicycles should be covered in a single article.

2. Open a public vote on a seperate page for a debate on wheter the video should be included or not.

   A ludicrous waste fo the community's time on absolute trivia. These kinds of votes are justified where there are two large camps warring over something. Here we apparently have Pat vs. everyone else.

3. Verifiability and the NPOV issue are simultanious, if we fix the NPOV we will be fixing the verifiability.

   Here you indicate that you do not understand what NPOV means. NPOV is about balance: making sure that a single perspective does not dominate (so the GWB article cannot say that George Bush is a lying hypocritical warmonger, nor can it say that he is the saviour of America from the forces of Liberalism). Your issue here is that your perspective does not dominate. I see no credible evidence of POV dispute here. At worst there are a couple of minor details which might posisbly, if one were inclined to nit-pick, be the subject of a request on the talk page for a source, but that's about it.

Right. Well, I think that just about covers it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I move that for now the article be reverted to the version before Pat added all the tags, with the exception of the single para move outlined above. Since the fundamental planks of Pat's claims are, by his own admission, at least questionable, including one "problem" which is apparently "solved" by pointing out that the required reference is already in the article, I think it's better to get rid of the dog's breakfast of senseless tags at this point. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ "A Guide to Footnotes and Endnotes for NASA History Authors". NASA History Style Guide. Retrieved March 24, 2005.

moped-use pioneers in California, U. S. A.

No doubt there is trouble with this entry because some populations of native Californians wish to see a photograph of a moped with Stanley Chow featured. Why, you of course ask? Because Dr. Chow was greatly shrifted as Principal Investigator with the Research and Development Exchange program at Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development when the RDx concept was seized and implemented to benefit NATO memberships.

Dr. Chow no doubt would have approved of the original intent and purpose of the RDx network concept: to investigate an oracle bead shrine site within the boundaries of the state of Pennsylvania, then disseminate the findings nationwide. 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) beadtot 2/5/2006

Summary of reasons for listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Hello! I have arrived at this talk page from Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In understand there is an edit war going on here. I've looked over the talk pages and suchlike and found them all rather confusing. I was hoping that someone could summarise what is being argued about, to make sure we're all reading from the same page.

Looking at the article history, I assume the debate is between this version and this version, the differences being these. From the diff shown there I would sumarise that user:CyclePat believes the article needs a large number of 'citation needed' tags and while User:JzG believes the page does not need these things. I inferr from this that CyclePat thinks the article is factually inaccurate while JzG thinks it factually accurate. Furthermore, the statements in the article which CyclePat believes are inaccurate are the ones marked as 'citation needed' in this page.

Would you say this is an accurate summary of the argument you are requesting comments on? If not, what do you feel would be an accurate summary? Thanks, Mike1024 (t/c) 00:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mike. I'm glad to see someone has responded request. Thank you. I would also like to say that what you say is a fair summary. If it was up to me I would be putting a To Do list and add more references as per WP:CITE where possible. That is the fundermal problem. The problem with that problem is if we take it too seriously we could go as far as removing the information when in fact some of the information is actually true. So the idea I think not really about the information being true or not, it is about it's verifiability. --CyclePat 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (a good article I think we should look up to is todays featured article on the main page... observe all the footnotes!) --CyclePat 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike, I would say that you need to read back through the Talk history and see the comments from people like Katefan0 and Woohookitty. There are three admins, including me, who have contributed to this article, and we are all in agreement that the tags were unnecessary and disruptive. Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the issues on this article are now at least dormant, major edits having not been made for some time - is that correct? If so, it's probably time to unlist the RfC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. A seaze fire between me and JzG occured a while ago. I will be posting some new evidence once I'm done with an upcomming trial in Ontarion concerning Power-assisted bicycles. --CyclePat 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)