Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Broken link

The Official Dodge link is currently broken. --saritonin 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Concept Design Links Between Tomahawk and the Batcycle

I'm new to Wikipedia discussions, so if this is kind of speculation is frowned upon, feel free to delete. is there any evidence showing that concepts were taken from the Tomahawk to produce the Batcycle in the The Dark Knight, especially between the unusally rectangular shape as well as the additional wheels? --64.13.68.118 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that you mean the Batpod, which is a two-wheeled vehicle with 20″ drag tires. There is nothing similar to Tomahawk, except that both were best designed to be quiet :-) JuanR (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Top speed?

I think it should be noted that the REAL WORLD top speed of this bike, so far is 35MPH, it has not been documented ever going any faster to my knowledge. A professional rider was driving the bike, in a showdown between it and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa(A 4 cylinder, 1300cc, 170HP engine). The driver of the Dodge Tomahawk only got to 35mph before he dropped the bike. It was completely useless. The Hayabusa was/is the worlds fastest production motorcycle. The Hayabusa is likely to remain the fastest because after the year 2000, ALL motorcycle companies reached an agreement to limit ALL motorcycles to 300KPH(Roughly 186MPH). The 1999 Hayabusa was clocked, dead stock at 200.2MPH in England. Because of the agreement, I don't think that speed will ever be broken by a stock bike, even though the current Kawasaki ZX-14 has more power, it is limited to 186 MPH in stock form, and there are still questions about it even reaching 200mph unrestricted due to wind resistance/aerodynamics.

Wikipedia prides itself on not printing opinions and fact checking, yet they tolerate this article saying that the bike has an estimated top speed of 300 MPH. I could estimate my car goes 10,000 MPH, it can't, but you can't prove it can't and I am pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed to ype it on a page here at Wikipedia. I don;t think that just because Dodge said it, it should be put on the page, unless it can be proven. If anything, it has been proven it can-NOT go 300 mph, nor did it prove it's 0-60 claim of 2.5 seconds, as it ONLY reached 35 mph before it became so unstable that it was dropped by a professional rider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.187.173 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It must be emphasized that previous claim by Dodge were that the bike goes beyond 400 mph (which was just theoretical nonsense). After public scorn, they reduced the claim to 300 mph (which continues being laughable). It is doubt that can go beyond the 50mph. JuanR (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Design

Loving the car myself, the four wheels are entirely indepentdant of the other, mean that this is technically not a motorcycle. This (the independant wheel) is to aid turning and stability at high speeds, and the four wheels in the first place is to deal with the five hundred horsepower coming the from the 588 V10. :D im a huge viper fan. --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT-No, the turning thing can't be officially verified, but many have said that it makes perfect sense, i won't put it in the article, im just answering peoples questions here.

The overall design is very very bad and the engine power and rpms ridiculous when compared with motorbike engines. I doubt that four wheels are needed to deal with 500 hp, because there exists 1000 hp motorbikes with two wheels. I think that four wheels are a requirement to aid for lateral inertia of the engine. JuanR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Handling?

The article claims that the 4-wheeled configuration is to aid turning.. can anyone verify this? All's I've read on the subject is that 4 wheels were necessary to deal with the power output of the engine. ZoFreX 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It cannot be verified, it is the authors' POV. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the laugh of the century. BTW did you mean me as the author who forced his POV here? MATIA ☎ 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

From what i know, the wheels are on independent suspensions, allowing the wheels to slide by each other when the bike goes into a turn, allowing all four wheels to keep contact and allowing the bike to maintain a better grip through the turn.

I had read too something like that, but I don't remember where. talk to MATIA 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct.The Walkin Dude 16:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that four wheels are needed to deal with 500 hp, because there exists 1000 hp motorbikes with two wheels. I think that four wheels are a requirement to aid for lateral inertia of that bad engine. Moreover, I doubt that two wheeler back are for providing enough grip because the wheels are ridiculously tiny (150 wide). Any powerful motorbike has a rear 190 wide tire and there many mods with a 320 wide. JuanR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Top speed 400 mph: absurd

Please carefully read the cited article at Popular Science:

• "Dodge's 4-Wheel Tomahawk", Popular Science, vol. 262, no. 4, Bonnier Corporation, April 2003, ISSN 0161-7370

The idea that the Dodge Tomahawk could to over 400 mph is patently absurd, as explained in Popular Science. Unreliable sites, mostly anonymous blogs laden with ads, like http://www.exoticcars.ws/dodge-tomahawk/, or WP:USERGENERATED sites like http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_speed_of_dodge_tomahawk are incorrect when they say that Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could go 400 or 420 mph. Dodge first announced a speed of 420 mph, then later revised that down to a much lower, but equally laughable, 300 mph. In reality, the Tomahawk has not been verified to be mobile at all. Dodge admits the Tomahawk is a sculpture, not a vehicle. There is no evidence you could ride it through a parking lot at 5 mph. Dodge shipped them in an unrideble condition, allowed nobody to test them, and did not make good on their promise to bring a Tomahawk to Bonneville for a speed trial.

Please do not add any more misleading information to this article. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and only cite reliable, verifiable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tomahawk vs Viper video

This video begins by saying that the Tomahawk has a top speed of 420 mph, which is "not surprising" since it has the same engine as the Dodge Viper with "half the weight". This absurd reasoning, that top speed is a function of horsepower and weight, has been repeatedly debunked. The video then goes on to promise a drag race, which is a much different thing than measuring top speed. But since the program demonstrates Idiocracy-level intelligence, it has to be disqualified as a reliable source. TV shows like this are not quality sources, they exist merely to entertain the lowest common denominator.

The internet and TV are filled with wrongheaded assertions about the Dodge Tomahawk written by juveniles, and the only goal of this article should be to show how silly those assertions are. Numerous experts have made clear the Tomahawk is a joke, and those who dispute that have shown themselves to be woefully ignorant. Wikipedia's policy is not to give ignorant opinions equal weight. See WP:FRINGE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

1934 Plymouth Monster

Since I've been doing more research on this it's clear we can expand this article quite a bit with the sources cited above and more. Another motorcycle, worth mention here, or in a new article if more published information can be found, is another Chrysler 1,500 lb motorcycle, the 1934 Plymouth Monster [1][2][3]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Article bias: misleadingly and inaccurately presents top speed claims as only important issue

The article is currently in a seriously imbalanced state, focusing predominantly on top speed claims for this vehicle, when in fact, the Art Deco design, the sports car engine, and the enormous price tag, each figured at least as prominently in reliable source coverage. In addition, the manufacturer clearly indicated that the vehicle was a concept piece, operational but not intended to be ridden. Meanwhile, our article addresses top speed claims in the second sentence of the lead, and dedicates the entire body of the article to a single section, "Top speed." --Tsavage (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You just created a whole new talk thread to repeat the thing you've been saying in the discussion of the same issue above. Why? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The thread above is focused on top speed content in the lead. This is about the entire article. The lead summarizes the article. Two separate things, just closely connected as far as top speed. An easy indication of the overall bias problem is that there is more information in the lead about design, production and sales than in the article, in fact, everything about the bike other than top speed is in the lead only. Tail wagging dog. Problem in a nutshell. --Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Just imagine if you devoted a fraction of the energy spent filling the talk page with words to actually writing in the missing content in the article itself. Nobody said this is a Good Article nominee; it's barely more than a stub. What do we do with stubs? We expand them. We don't talk about expanding them. Please, don't let me stop you. Find sources, write. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I always do. The point of this section is to alert other editors. Contentious-seeming environments in particular can deter participation. Part of collaborative editing, using Talk, is to point out problems and deficiencies so that each new editor is not starting from square one in figuring out where things stand. For my part, I've watchlisted the article, and will participate in editing and discussion as vigorously as I can. --Tsavage (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Need to clarify if the versions sold were operational

The October 14, 2013 Forbes story Dodge's New Axe said the version of the Tomahawk sold to the public was "fully road-ready", just not certified for public roads. Another story, The Tomahawk's not for riding from the New Straits Times October 12, 2003 says, "Just in case you have ideas about shredding the tyres on the weekends, the reproduction is intended for display only. It is not fully operational and cannot be legally operated on public roads. The company does not say how much of the bike is operational." I'll try to double check the other sources to clear this up.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DRIVETIME: MOTORING: Dodge has bite of the Viper. Stewart Smith. Coventry Evening Telegraph (England) October 24, 2003 "DODGE TOMAHAWK CHRYSLER'S outrageous Viper-powered Dodge Tomahawk is to go into limited production as nothing more than a hugely-expensive ornament… It will be made by the firm that built the original as a piece of automotive sculpture and is intended for display only, as it will not be fully operational and cannot be legally driven on public roads anyway." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Tomahawk press release

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/chrysler-shows-8300cc-v10-500-horsepower-tomahawk-concept-motorcycle--or-maybe-its-an-atv--at-detroit-auto-show/

it one press release it states potential top speed of nearly 400mph - are they trying to say theoretical? and it also states 0-60 2.5 (estimated) top speed 300mph (also estimated) - either way, if this is a reliable source, it might makes this issue better.(or worse) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

[out of order reply] They probably computed top speed based on the power-drag formula. Try this calculator with inputs of C_d=0.50, frontal area=3 ft², weight=1500 lbs, speed=350 mph which should put you in the 500 HP ballpark. Of course this completely ignores real-world factors like rear wheel traction, aerodynamic lift, and the tires exploding from excessive heat. Brianhe (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

On reviewing this, it's not reliable. One source puts the press release with the same text saying 420mph. One source puts the same text saying over 400mph. One says nearly 400mph. One says over 300mph. What are the comments in regards to claimed top speed in the article based on? If the claim is disputed the article could be giving incorrect figures.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dodge-tomahawk-breaking-boundaries-at-full-throttle-73679652.html http://www.carpages.co.uk/dodge/chrysler_jeep_dodge_tomahawk_part_2_09_01_03.asp http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/chrysler-shows-8300cc-v10-500-horsepower-tomahawk-concept-motorcycle--or-maybe-its-an-atv--at-detroit-auto-show/

not a press release but... http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cx_dl_1014vow.html

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone got any idea how to locate a totally reliable copy of the original text of the press release? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words: derided by land speed experts

Brianhe: You removed a "weasel words" tag on:

derided by experts in land speed records[3]

Your reasoning per edit summary is: not weasel words; factual description of incredulity expressed by industry press. Have you checked the source (indicated as "3" in the article)? The statement gives the impression that experts ridiculed the claim, where the source indicates that two people, the owner of the land speed record motorcycle and the rider, casually commented on the Tomahawk based on looking at some photos. Comments in the article were "dubious" and "wondered" about, which I don't think makes it to "derided" (i.e. express contempt for; ridicule). The description, "experts in land speed records" is also misleading, that refers to just two people, the indirect reference is to all of the others who speculated about the claim in the press, who in general have not been shown to have any particular expertise, let alone in land speed records.

In short, these are weasel words because they are intended to give an impression of scope and authority of opinion, when the fact is, they refer to two people casually conjecturing. --Tsavage (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cycle World compares the calculations to children's "fourth-period study hall" and calls them "speculation run amok". Along with the general tone of the article I would say this is nothing but derision. – Brianhe (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe: Yes, Cycle World also does a neat 180: "Hold on. That's too harsh, especially since the Tomahawk ceases being ridiculous the instant you clap eyes on all that jewel-like stainless steel and polished aluminum - a Georg Jensen jewelry exhibit on wheels." Everyone knows the speed claim is not serious; no-one is taking this all that seriously...except we want to. --Tsavage (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've quoted Cruising Rider and Motorcyclist mocking the absurdity of the speed claim. Popular Science's tone was equally jocular. Glynn Kerr of Motorcycle Consumer News called the Tomahawk a "pointless 8.3-liter Viper-engined V10 ego trip that was a car designer's vision of what a futuristic motorcycle should look like" (March 2014, p.38-39) and said, "The 500 hp V-10 Dodge Tomahawk — You can instinctively tell when some design ideas aren't fully thought through." (April 2015. p. 40-41). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You are both still drawing your own conclusions. It's a matter of weight and context. You want to place a strong statement, using a loaded word like "derided" (or mocked/scoffed at/whatever) in the second sentence of the lead, which gives the impression that the bike was primarily promoted as a fast bike, and that it was an utter joke at being so. In fact, the bike was promoted as not road-tested, not intended to be ridden, and automotive sculpture. So we first of all should not have that top speed criticism as the second sentence, and then, in the lead, we should not be overemphasizing the ridicule, which is after all from journalists who, in automotive, are in the business of creating drama and controversy where they can, to keep things interesting. All that belongs in the body.

To reiterate, Doge called the Tomahawk "outrageous" and "sculpture." It was marketed as an over-the-top show piece, and they made no serious claim as to top speed, just that it was theoretically possible, here or on some more favorable planet. For Wikipedia to take that all so seriously, and then fixate on one aspect, top speed, and then further fixate on journalists taking the easy shot they were given, is misrepresenting the subject entirely. Do you think you would have the lead designer contradicting his employer by saying in detail, in a promotional interview, that he didn't think 400 or even 300 was possible? We can't take a publicity stunt and portray it as some serious engineering blunder or design catastrophe. Seriously?

(As for weasel words, it's as I already said, there is no bunch of "land speed experts" deriding the bike, just two land speed record holders, the owner and his rider, being dubious while looking at photos, as a device for one writer in one publication, who happened to have a brother to call.) --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not fixating. We are conforming to the picture presented by our best sources. You are choosing to accept part of what our expert sources say, but then edit out anything they tell us on the subject of the top speed for reasons you have not given. It is unacceptable to mislead readers into thinking that an unstreamlined vehicle with no more than 500 hp could conceivably approach 300 mph. It's no different than treating a claim that it could fly to the Moon as a respectable claim.

You have yet to cite even one source that we could use to support the idea that this speed claim is anything but bullshit used to generate buzz before a credulous public. Experts in the automotive, motorcycling and science media were doing a public service in debunking the nonsense claim, and Wikipedia should not try to sweep that under the rug without a justification. What is the justification for this? What's the basis? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"You have yet to cite even one source that we could use to support the idea that this speed claim is anything but bullshit used to generate buzz before a credulous public." So? How is that relevant? I am not arguing any sort of support for the speed claim (neither is any other editor whose comments I've read here). In fact, you're only repeating what I said, that the speed claim was obvious hype, nobody tried to defend it. But you want to make it seem as if it was a serious claim, that consumers might buy the bike because it could go fast. That's clearly not the case. It is officially sculpture intended for display only. We even have the replicas being sold non-operational. And they didn't make an absolutely implausible claim, just a highly unlikely one --Tsavage (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim itself was highly notable. Our articles should be written in a way that reflects the priorities of our sources. If our sources put something in the headlines, the lead, the top of their stories, so should we. You're burying the fact because... because why again? What purpose is served here? That's the part I don't get. A very unusual thing happened and for some reason you want this unusual event downplayed. Why? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You're going around in circles.

First, this section is about weasel words, your assertion that the speed claim was derided by experts in land speed records, when in fact, one journalist called his brother, who happens to be the owner of a land speed record motorcycle, and got him and the rider to speculate while looking at Tomahawk photos so he could use it in his article: "dubious" is the strongest quote in the article from their comments. The weasel words misrepresent the source.

Second, you say, "If our sources put something in the headlines, the lead, the top of their stories, so should we" - four days ago, it was noted: "The Forbes and Popular Science articles are both quite in-depth and would together satisfy GNG on their own, and they first mention speed in the fourth and fifth paragraph in, respectively - speed is not the main lead."

There's been no suggestion that the top speed claim and the arguments against it be excluded or buried, it just doesn't happen to be the primary claim overshadowing all else. Do a word count on the various feature-length sources and see what percentage is spent discussing top speed. You're simply trying to impose your own views, entirely contradicted by the sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I was curious to see, so I did a very quick check and here is a rough coverage ratio for a few of the main sources:

Popular Science - 4/15 paragraphs on top speed (and that's with elaboration around the writer's brother being the land speed record holder)

Chicago Tribune - 1/21 paras on top speed: They handled it in one sentence, "Wolfgang Bernhard, Chrysler Group chief operating officer, said Tomahawk will accelerate from zero to 60 m.p.h. in 2 seconds and has a claimed top speed of 300 m.p.h.--claimed because no one has pushed the one-of-a-kind concept past 100 m.p.h."

Cycle World - 3/32 paras on top speed, first mentioned 21 paras in

That's hardly prime topic coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?

Another problem with this pretense that WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL are all-important is the mistaken impression that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is policy. This Manual of Style guideline is only some rules of thumb which can be applied generically to polish up the wording of articles. It is totally incorrect to read this guideline as proscribing language, telling us what words are "unencyclopedic" or making the final judgement on anything. "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language" is all it says. Calling the top speed an "exceptional claim" is clear, direct language. Saying the media derided the claim is clear and direct. The Words to Watch guideline is far less critical than the WP:FALSEBALANCE section of the WP:NPOV policy. Policy says "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." You can't violate policy in the service of a writing rule of thumb.

Credulously parroting Dodge's fanciful claims about the Tomahawk's speed, and about it's imaginary handling characteristics, violates the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy as well. You credulously repeat the claims in Popular Science about what the company hoped the novel, undeveloped suspension of the Tomahawk could do, while deleting any of Popular Science's loud and clear caveats that these dubious claims had no independent support, and that Dodge was cagey when prodded for specifics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Why are you leaving out Motorcyclist? Why are you leaving out Cruising Rider?" I'm not, I didn't. I presented an example based on the most-used sources. Cruising Rider doesn't appear to be cited. I couldn't find a full copy of Kerr in Motorcyclist (if you have it, you can do the numbers on it) but did find the first six paragraphs excerpted - in them, there is no mention of top speed, and Kerr does frame the whole subject as not mainly about speed (just as I and others have been arguing), in the third paragraph of the article, after a build-up mentioning Democratic fundraisers and Playboy fluffers:

"What they did is create a rid-able four-wheel motorcycle with an 8.3-liter Viper V-10 engine supplying power. It's a machine so resolutely evil, it has chunks of V-Max in its stool. Until Morton Thiokol starts building personal-use solid rocket boosters with saddles on them, the Dodge Tomahawk ranks as the ultimate bad-ass ride. The sheer outrage of the exercise is its reason for being."[4]

Unfortunately, it seems to be, here and in at least a couple of other cases (like the unverifiable cite to quadricycle in the article, so tagged), you are presenting sources to support your argument that do not hold up when checked. --Tsavage (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) Dennis Bratland: The arguments against your extreme position are common sense correlated with policies and guidelines, which is how our PAGs are intended to be applied. Now you are arguing pure PAGs, what weight to give which, and so forth, while ignoring or dismissing previously stated arguments concerned with content specifics, which veers in the direction of entirely off-topic.

We can start a separate section if you want to debate "Handling" vs "Suspension" or "Handling claims" or whatever minimizing term you want to use as a subsection title. The fact is, "Handling" alone is a proper and accurate description for this group of characteristics, real or intended. We've made in the lead of the parent Performance section what the state of design vs tested reality is, and we can improve that if need be. I also adjusted the wording of the cornering statement to "designed" to do whatever. We do not want to suggest that the Tomahawk is somehow a fraudulently marketed product, by trying to shoehorn in everywhere that everything is a "claim," nothing is "real." That is, once again, a non-neutral editorial stance.

In a further appeal to common sense, applied to sources and PAGs, we have the bike being ridden up to 100mph, which is still a considerable speed for such a giant hunk of possibly hard-to-handle machinery (and there are riding videos online), so it is not as if there is zero real-world evidence of handling. --Tsavage (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland You removed the weasel words tag that has been explained in detail here and not addressed. This is the second removal of that tag, and you have reverted it. Please do not enter into revert warring. If you insist, we can take this to WP:NPOVN. --Tsavage (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

Dennis Bratland: You've gone beyond discussion and bold reversion to outright edit warring by breaking the three revert rule (WP:3RR): [5], [6], [7]. In addition, your pattern of reversion goes back further, over several days. Several editors do not agree with your position, and there is a preponderance of clear evidence that you are unsupported by sources in your insistence on making the Tomahawk speed claim the most prominent aspect of this article. These three reverts within a few hours demonstrate that you are reverting to versions of a sentence that you favor, rather than following through on Talk page discussion, where your assertions have been challenged. --Tsavage (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You've now added a fourth reversion in one 24-hour period, three of them without edit summaries: [8]. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Initially, I was reluctant to file a report regarding edit warring. I have made reverts myself, instead of discussion, so I'm less than 100% innocent. I have however tried to remain within certain limits and taken things to discussion when it seemed to be heading towards a revert cycle. The reverts made by Dennis Bratland over the last few days have breached the limits set by wikipedia and seem to be in a direct response to talk page discussions not going his way. Perhaps this is a situation in which a 3RR report is the next logical step. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dennis_Bratland_reported_by_User:Spacecowboy420_.28Result:_.29 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that a report was filed and a warning issued. Hopefully, that helps focus the editing here on content. --Tsavage (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk about collaboration and compromise

I separated this from the previous section, in order to keep the focus of that section, "What the article could look like ," directly on proposed revisions.

(As a brief aside, yes, this has so far been, IMO, an admirable effort towards collaboration and compromise. It's certainly what lately I for one have been attempting, in contentious editing situations, to follow to the happy, or bitter, end. File it under: Does Wikipedia really work? :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It shows me that there are too many rules, not enough common sense and not enough admins who are willing to come in and state policy. It would be much easier if someone with the authority to state rules and enforce them, came to the article and in 3 mins said "you can say this, but you can't say that" - but that's the price we pay for a nice fair process that is open to everyone. I guess it's probably worth it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"I guess it's probably worth it." I absolutely agree, it's the only way this anonymous thing can work. I think what it takes is editors to actually get together on something, as we have all been doing (to a crazy extreme) here, and then, to have a more efficient, less last-resort, speedier use of formal DR measures, like formal closes (which can be done on request on ANY discussion, not just RfCs, per WP:TALK), and admins who are into making routine common sense evaluations that apply to many essentially straightforward situations. What we often have is single editors either being swarmed by small groups of editors, or the reverse, single editors able to essentially hold content hostage. We need to apply...group common sense, actively and often! A little slowly, but we are starting to apply that here, I believe/hope. :) --Tsavage (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On an article such as this one, group common sense can certainly work. It takes time, but I can't imagine people creating sock accounts or descending into foul mouthed insults over the tone used to describe a motorbike. On the more emotional articles with groups of editors all pushing their POV, common sense might not be enough. I tend to stay away from articles that I have overly emotional feelings about, I don't really care about this silly bike, it would just be nice to help to improve the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't care about this bike, then the only reason for you to persist is for the sake of the fight. Your edit history suggests you are searching far and wide across a range unrelated topics in order to find the most inflammatory topics to incite debate over. That's going to catch up with you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes enjoy editing controversial articles. I enjoy the debate and find them far more satisfying when consensus is achieved. There is nothing wrong with that. But that has nothing to do with my edits on this article, I have a great interest in performance vehicles, which led me to this article. Focus on my edits and the article and you might find both of us enjoying our wiki-time more than if you try to make this into some silly personal drama. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What the article could look like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spacecowboy420/sandbox

weasel words removed.. top speed claim drama moved from the lead to a more relevant section.. unsourced claims removed.. less content on speed claims to improve balance..

comments? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this version is what one would expect given the sources we have (and this is, in fact, a well-sourced subject, with feature coverage from automotive, design, business and consumer media).

Since we have some....statistical support as to balance of speed claim coverage in sources, I extended it to an explicit comparison:

this article currently; 50% speed claim coverage (by word count, approx. 500/1000 wds)

three main sources: 5%, 10%, 26% - avg. 14% - speed claim coverage (by paragraph count)

Clearly, we are misrepresenting the importance of top speed, based on the relative importance demonstrated by the sources. Also, the journalist's claims become redundant: they are not presented as experts in mechanical engineering, automotive design, or anything like that, so it is just like listing sports commentator or film critic comments, a small, representative sample at most is warranted for an encyclopedic style of coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more my attempt to reach a compromise. Of course there is far too much focus on the top speed claim. It deserves one or two lines at most. I will revise it to make it reflect the amount of focus on the top speed that it actually deserves. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a little more. Considering the media claims about Ferrari's "test models" and the lack of coverage in the relevant articles, I think it deserves to be trimmed more. But it's a start. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen Car and Driver's write up of the Tomahawk? Less than 100 words, yet they make sure they finish with well-founded skepticism of the implausible 0-to-60 time and top speed claim. All this stuff about the suspension design and the extravagant machining of aluminum billet is Dodge's unverifiable, self-serving press release material. The independent press cared about other things: 1) the bullshit performance claims and 2) the weirdness of a car-engined motorcycle, thrown together in a in little time, and 3) what it said about Wolfgang Bernhard and DaimlerChrysler's reckless, over-the-top, no-consequences style.[9]

Listen to what the sources are trying to tell you. You can't just censor the criticism when it comes across so strongly, with no dissent. I suggest "The rise and fall of the Detroit auto show." Automobile Magazine April 2011, p. 12 as another source that brings much-needed perspective as an antidote to the press-release PR focus on shiny metal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's all already been said, and it comes down to this: one of the sources you have prominently cited and quoted as expressing extreme skepticism over the top speed claim, opened his article on the Tomahawk, framing the subject, as follows (my emphasis):

"What they did is create a rid-able four-wheel motorcycle with an 8.3-liter Viper V-10 engine supplying power. It's a machine so resolutely evil, it has chunks of V-Max in its stool. Until Morton Thiokol starts building personal-use solid rocket boosters with saddles on them, the Dodge Tomahawk ranks as the ultimate bad-ass ride. The sheer outrage of the exercise is its reason for being."[10]

If that leaves any doubt that the main story is the outrageous Viper-engine-with-handlebars sculpture, and not the top speed claim, this quote from a senior Dodge manager at the time should confirm it:

"“Could you ride it down your driveway to the mailbox and back? Yes, if you are crazy enough.”[11]

Of course the bike was not intended for high-speed or even normal riding, and of course we must cover the top speed and acceleration claims, including how untested they are, and how the media questioned them, all in proportion to the other aspects of the story. The most verifiably expert opinion about the speed claim that we have is the Tomahawk lead designer, saying he thought all the published claims were not possible. It really doesn't get more definitive than that, short of actual testing, and that's in the article, so it's not clear what you're arguing for. --Tsavage (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You're falling for the double standard Dodge wished to be judged by, to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they asserted the Tomahawk was "real" and could really go, and on the other hand it was just a concept vehicle. Our sources called them on that. You can't have it both ways.

At the 2003 Detroit Auto Show, Ford made no specific claims about the top speed or acceleration of their 427 V-10 concept vehicle, nor did GM try to say the 1,000 hp Cadillac Sixteen could reach X mph or do 0 to 60 in Y seconds. It was extraordinary for Dodge to make such specific, implausible boasts about a mere concept vehicle. This was in some ways a bold triumph for DaimlerChrysler to have made such a crazy thing as the Tomahawk, but it was also a public embarrassment to pretend it was so fast. I can't find a shred of proof it ever went over 30 mph without crashing. Making a stable motorcycle is not easy; one does not simply attach a couple wheels to an engine and expect miracles. This is what the automotive writers wanted to tell us.

All of this is coming from our sources. We should write an article that reflects the impression left by our best sources, not the impression Dodge's senior managers would like, in retrospect, to be remembered for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. We should not always come to conclusions about what writers want to tell us. When criticism is obvious, a sentence such as "the bike was criticized (by ...) for handling poorly" is much better than "the bike handled poorly" statements of fact can and should be given as facts, if they are not disputed. opinions should always be given as opinions and not implication should be given that they are facts. Besides, we can cover the disputed top speed in two or three lines at most. I think it's pretty easy for readers to work out how much credibility to give the speed claims, without devoting paragraphs to it. Besides, was the (often quoted) 420mph claim, any official Dodge performance claim? Or just some rough estimate by someone without any technical knowledge (or even an ironic joke) who happens to work for Dodge? Some background on the 420mph claim would be good, because right now I have failed to find something reliable from Dodge with a top speed claim. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We do not leave things for readers to work out. Your intense skepticism toward certain selected facts, but not others, makes no sense, and it's blatantly biased. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

i removed some stuff

looks like this was talked about lots. im an action editor so i removed the stupid stuff about speed. its not a production bike, just a concept and ornament, so the design matters, guessing a top speed dont. Zachlita (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That is terribly destructive and it completely ignores the sources. Read the cited articles. Read the articles in Google News. True, normally they never make speed claims about concept vehicles, but in this case they did, and did so loudly and brashly. It's one of the things that made the Tomahawk outrageous. There was a massive reaction. The way we determine what maters is that our sources make it matter by covering it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

its ok mate, i left some of it. concept cars and bikes are about design and image not speed, especially one that is called a rolling sculpture. i dont need to read a million lines all saying the same thing about not being as fast as someone said.Zachlita (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So again, pretty much the opposite of what we read in the sources? That's a unique point of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

nice source. is it reliable? Zachlita (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is The Associated Press reliable? Yes, that's just the sort of discussion we should be having. It's wonderful that an experienced editor like yourself created a new account and returned to Wikipedia, so that we can engage in productive discussions like "The Associated Press? Can we cite it?" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

oh we can cite it? good. can i change the article to show the top speed that your super reliable source says, please?Zachlita (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the general mainstream press did almost all credulously report the top speed and acceleration without qualification. The specialist automotive, motorcycling and science press universally, without dissent, mocked, derided, and debunked the claims. That's the story we should tell. It's utterly unlike the Ford 427 concept, or the Cadillac Sixteen, where no claims to the vehicles being truly functional or having a specific performance were made, per normal concept cars. Dodge stuck their foot in it and that is notable. Automobile magazine remembered it a decade later as being a unique event. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

the source says over 300miles per hour, im happy you dont mind basing the article on that source. Zachlita (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Three paragraphs in a multi-topic column in the Gainseville Sun, AP or not, doesn't trump full articles in major newspapers, and business and science magazines, not to mention, specifically motorcyle mags. We have Forbes, Popular Science, Cycle World, Motorcyclist, the Chicago Tribune and others, all covering the speed claim as just one aspect of the Tomahawk, not first mentioned, and with an average coverage of around 15% of article length. You can't compare a brief blurb to a full article - we are writing an article, not a blurb.

The balance in the current version of the article is in line with the sources. The speed claim, while noteworthy, was not the main focus in media coverage (as has been discussed every which way in the sections above) - overemphasizing it in the article misrepresents the sources. --Tsavage (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If it were true that the majority of the coverage were on topics other than the performance claims, you could use all that coverage to expand the other parts of the article and get the balance you seek. Why don't you just do that? Wholesale deletion of critical response is only necessary on BLPs. For regular topics you just fix it. This deletion strategy is not acceptable.Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tsavage is on point here, I think, in asking what it is about the Tomahawk that the reliable sources say makes it notable and how that should be reflected in the article. This should be especially weighted towards its notability in the enduring record and not just at or about the time of its announcement. In this sense Dennis' comment about Automobile's 10-year retrospective seems especially important. Can we look at it from this perspective? I haven't exhaustively read all the sources, but three things do seem to stand out. One, it was a deliberately provocative mis-engineered application of a 10-cylinder muscle car motor. Two, it had an "unusual" to say the least wheel layout and may or may not even be classified as a motorcycle. Three, the top speed claims and the fact that they were never backed up with any testing whatsoever (did Dodge even demonstrate that the machine was rideable?). – Brianhe (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe: "what it is about the Tomahawk that the reliable sources say makes it notable and how that should be reflected in the article" isn't really what I said, we're not looking to define which individual details made the bike notable (it's already notable because it was well-covered in reliable sources, per WP:GNG), we're just looking to see overall what relative importance the sources give to various aspects of the bike.

"This should be especially weighted towards its notability in the enduring record and not just at or about the time of its announcement" Not sure what that means. The basic facts about the bike - specifications, design and fabrication details, and the like - do not change over time, and that is primarily what we are looking to neutrally present in the article. If opinions about it have changed, and we have sources for that (I couldn't find the Automobile article you mention), then a "Legacy" or "Critical reaction" section or something similar would perhaps be warranted. If we even had reliable sources saying that Dodge was being irresponsible, or deliberately misleading, or fraudulent, or tacky, or any other comment directly about the fact that they made such a claim, that could be noteworthy. Otherwise, the article should present the facts and leave the interpretation of how they add up to the reader (WP:NPOV).

We have the speed claims, and the fact that the bike was presented as untested sculpture, intended for display not riding, and the lead designer saying that he did not believe the claims were possible. Adding to that several paragraphs of journalistic speculation about the reasons why the speed claims are unlikely ("no fairing," "poor aerodynamics," "not enough wheelbase," "poor front suspension," and so on) does not add anything factual to the article, and does create the impression that coverage was mainly about the speed claim, when analysis of the four main sources shows that coverage averaged about 14%. --Tsavage (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The basic facts about the bike, specifications, design and fabrication details, comes entirely from press releases. You're arguing that Wikipedia exists to parrot the company line on their products, and everything else has to be minimized and subjected to the greatest possible skepticism. WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTCATALOG make clear we don't do this: " Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The commentary from independent sources is the very thing that tells us it's worthy of inclusion. Not merely a list of claimed specifications that censors the numerous expert objections to those claims.

You've got it completely backwards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

You've misrepresented and quoted out of context the wrong policy item, WP:NOTCATALOG says in its entirety:

"Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."

You should be working instead with WP:BALASPS:

"Balancing aspects. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

That policy applies. --Tsavage (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

so for all the people involved. how much of the article do you think should be spent talking about the speed claims? I think about 10-15% what do others think?Zachlita (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy that places limits on topics that way. You're saying if you can't come up with enough words to write about how shiny the aluminum is and how cool the suspension works, then we're not allowed to fully explain why and how experts found flaws with the thing. There are a number of different approaches to criticism, reviewed in Wikipedia:Criticism, but this isn't one of them. The most defensible way you could bring balance to the article is to write more about the things you think the article should say. Our sources give us what we can write about: if you got the sourcing to cover something, then that's how much you can write about it. Deleting all the criticism is never going to stand. The core policy of Neutral point of view is never going to allow such an approach. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't criticism, it's conjecture about an entirely undefended (in fact, downgraded and implicitly questioned) claim. Dodge claimed X, and the fact that it was an unlikely and untested claim, coming first from Dodge itself, was duly noted in the media. Journalists weren't criticizing the announcement, they were adding theories of why the claim was unlikely - how is including the engineering predictions of automotive writers by the paragraph load relevant, useful, or balanced coverage? It's not.

Also, included quotes about the same thing from multiple sources, at length, is redundant, and encouraging similar redundancy elsewhere to create "balance" is not consistent with concise, readable articles.

Also, emphasizing the most extreme journalistic speculation is itself non-neutral: adding color is part of the job of specialty journalists, publications like Cycle World and Popular Science obviously wanted to include lavish layouts of Tomahawk centerfold photos, and needed text to go with it, as non-fluffy as possible. Our news sources, like Forbes and Chicago Tribune, don't enter into that hype speculation, they just report the facts. So we would be giving the impression that there was a big, serious kerfuffle over the speed claim, when the same writets in the same article's were also drooling over the bike's concept and appearance (as I illustrated with excerpts earlier) - are we to include paragraphs of drool to create balance? No. --Tsavage (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

oh come on Dennis, it was a simple question meant to get a compromise and deserved a simple answer. you have an opinion that all the other editors apart from your mate Brianhe disagree with. You are dragging this out far too much. have some respect for the other editors and wikipedia, cos right now youre fighting a lost cause and wasting everyones time. Zachlita (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, apart from reasonable adjustment, I think the speed claim coverage in the current version is balanced and accurate. There's more info on design and fabrication to be included, and acceleration should be mentioned, also, possibly a "Legacy" section if there is enough well-sourced more recent commentary (there is at least a small amount). Finally, there's an argument for a brief "Critical reception" section, considering the promotional nature of the machine, some of the comments about appearance and other aspects in the media, and the fact that there's no test drive reviews. Overall, unless new sources and material are found, the article seems otherwise roughly in balance and consistent with sources. --Tsavage (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The current version is a POV-pushing whitewash. It is almost all promotional in tone and violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. "Written like a press release" is the tag. It cannot be allowed to remain without fully summarizing the numerous criticisms of the Tomahawk, and Dodge's behavior.

The question of limiting the criticism to 10-15%, or any other number, is a non-starter. WP:UNDUE doesn't in any way allow this, and you'll find zero articles on Wikipedia where an editor is told, "No, stop, you can't add that because on this article no more than 17% of the words can be criticism. That is never done.

Just go write the material you think should be written to cover the other aspects. If you can't write a proportionate amount, then your assertion that the sources mostly cover topics other than the bogus performance claims is proven false. You say most of the coverage is not about that, then prove it. WP:UNDUE spells it out for you: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There's a footnote right there that speaks directly to what your group is attempting: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." And " Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." The Flat Earth concept in this case equates to anyone who thinks Dodge was not egregiously bullshitting.

Please go and carefully read WP:UNDUE.

The policy couldn't be more clear on this, but let me add another way of understanding the right way to handle criticism: look at the two Featured Articles we have on commercial automobiles: Holden Commodore (VE) and Talbot Tagora. The Commodore article contains very little criticism, just about 5 sentences about the compact spare tire and no air conditioning. I think, in spite of the FA status, that more criticism should be included, but this was a very successful model line that generally received accolades from the automotive press. Talbot Tagora, on the other hand, is 2366 words long, and 1040 of those are devoted to criticism. This car was a "showroom flop", and so you would expect a signficant part of the article should be about its failure. The point is that anywhere from near zero to some 45% of an article representing "Wikipedia's best content" can be criticism. It really depends on what your sources give you. If you read about the Tagora, you're going to be reading about why it didn't sell, because that was what made an impact. If you read about the Tomahawk, you're going to read about three things: Dodge made a V-10 motorcycle (WTF!), it successfully created hype around the Dodge Viper, and the performance claims were roundly debunked. It's totally fine for 40 to 50% of an article to be criticism, or analysis of what went wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

from your point of view its unlucky that no one agrees with you and that current consensus supports an article with far less focus on top speed claims. from looking at the discussion page, its clear to see that every dispute resolution option has disagreed with your point of view and so has every other editor. we have a stable article now, time to walk away and waste less time on this and more time on other articles.Zachlita (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Every single statement you've just made is false, which anyone can see. So of course, the answer is no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

then keep on reverting.i see an article ban in your future.Zachlita (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)