Talk:Critical Mass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Comment This article was cited as a source in a ruling from the High Court of England and Wales, Kay v. the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. See Wikipedia as a court source.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is part of WikiProject Cycling, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Older comments

If I were about to start a peace group and call it CND perhaps an existing group with that name might object, on legal grounds, therefore asserting its legal rights.

As a founder of Ramsgate Critical Mass (1984) I must ask who thought to use the name of an exising english pressure group, seen on TV, and local press for years, without attempting to contact said groups secretary?

We never objected, nor do now because of the politics of our collective, seeking the expansion of awareness of pollution, etc.

Nevertheless I am prepaired to make legal representations for Ramsgate Critial Mass, IF our group is whitewashed for fear of association with radical activists.

Faedra 11:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) (first secretary Critical Mass uk).

I don't think Wikipedia is really the forum for this. Critical Mass, in this context, started in San Francisco. I believe the name came from a documentary called "Return of the Scorcher" which included footage and discussion of bicycles in China. Cyclists would mass at one side of the intersection and, when a critical mass was reached, could push through the opposing traffic and get through the intersection.

If you would like to add disamiguation, please do. Shermozle 17:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic."

I'd like to see a better analysis of this slogan.

As a man who enjoys both bike riding and car driving, I believe both kinds of riders san and should cooperate. I daresay, however, that CM does not want to cooperated but to supplant, i.e., to eliminatec car traffic completely. In the recent even in Manhattan, I think they wanted to tie up car traffic just to stir up trouble (possible related to next weeks Republican convention).

The meaning of the paradoxical sloagan seems to be:

  • Only bicycle traffic is true traffic. We have the right to block all other kinds of vehicles, especially our arch-nemesis, the automoblile.

If huge groups of cyclists want to galivant around the city once a month and claim extra privileges while going through interesections (like a funeral procession can claim), while that's find and dandy. As long as they don't do it too often and they're reasonable about yielding to ambulances.

They could be public-minded about it and more effectively elicit support for motorists if a few members of each platoon of cyclists would dismount at an intersection and direct traffic until all the bikes had passed by. Take their place at the rear, then at the next intersection, the lead squad takes a turn, and so on.

But this group seems aimed at being deliberately disruptive. They seek conflict and confrontation, not compromise and cooperation. --Uncle Ed 19:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the location for this discussion either. Shermozle 17:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. I've personally watched CM riders deliberately plug up major intersections here in San Francisco (trapping streetcars and pedestrians as well as cars) without any pretense of merely trying to let bikes pass through safely. I honestly don't think I could write something well enough and objective enough, but it seems remiss to gloss over the gratuitous mess CM can (often, in my observance) be. [[User:troymccluresf]

[edit] Cleanup—21 May 2005

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


[edit] Is there evidence of criticism from the auto industry? 3 June 2005

"Critics, in particular the auto industry, have claimed that this is a deliberate attempt to obstruct traffic, and cause a disruption of normal city functions."

I have never heard of any comment by the auto industry itself on critical mass. Is there any reference to support this claim? If not, it is misleading and suggests a type of influence Critical Mass doesn't actually have.

mikelmaron 11:40, June 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • This wording was added on 19 October 2004 by an anon editor, so there is not much chance of getting the editor to cite his/her source. Going back through the history of this article I think that the wording of the introduction has been better. Maybe we should reinstate one of the older introductions. JeremyA 16:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I know of no such criticism from the auto industry. It would be more accurate to say that some municipal authorities and police in particular have made this claim. They have not, however, substantiated it. Indeed, for a U.S. federal court case last year, a traffic expert created (and handily defended) a model of a Critical Mass which yielded an incremental burden of 7 hundredths of 1 percent to daily traffic in midtown Manhattan. This model assumed an unusually large ride which, unlike the actual ride, somehow stops all cross-traffic from getting through; so the real numbers would be even lower. Given that, I don't think the opening summary paragraph should assert that "Critical Mass does slow city traffic" and that the only counter-argument is a slogan (though it's a good slogan). Jym 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should Wiki attempt to list all the rides?

Since 1998 I've maintained a worldwide directory of Critical Mass rides. I note that this article seems to attempt to repeat that work but lists only a small fraction of the rides. Is there any point in doing so? Would it not serve readers better to refer them to my directory, and to the other directory that exists? What are other editors' feelings on this? Michaelbluejay 08:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The 'Current active rides' list was started by an anon editor back in March of this year. At that time I remember that my initial reaction was to delete it as an unmaintainable list (how do we know whether a particular ride is or is not still active 5 years after it was added to the list?). However, partly because I was still fairly new to wikipedia and not very good at being bold, and partly because I wanted to see my home ride (Chicago) mentioned in the article, I was guilty instead of growing the list. Of course, everyone who visits this page has the same urge that I did to see that the Critical Mass in their town is mentioned on the list, so now it has grown quite long. To a certain extent I would not object to seeing the list go—the list on your website is very long and I don't see how having a list of that length in this article would benefit the article, but I cannot think of a good way to filter the list. On the other hand I can also think of a few fairly good arguments for keeping it too. Firstly, even though incomplete, it does give the reader a good feel for how widespread Critical Mass has become. Secondly, your argument for deleting it (why have this information here when it is also on another webpage?) could equally apply to a lot of the information on wikipedia—if we just linked to everything that was on another web page then wikipedia would rapidly become just another web directory. Also, by being here the information is placed under the GFDL, with all of the benefits that that brings—including that it would make it into any non-online versions of wikipedia that may emerge in the future.
Thoughts bouncing around inside my head include adding a header to the list—something like this list is incomplete, for a full list of rides see http://Critical-Mass.info and http://critical-mass.org. Or maybe we should change the section title to 'Selected rides' and limit it to, say, five rides from any given country. Such a list could be further shortened by only including a particular ride in it if an editor is willing to write a short paragraph giving some history/details of that ride. JeremyA (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I like all of your ideas. Let me add one more: If we keep the list of individual rides, move it to the BOTTOM, so that the directories like Critical-Mass.info and critical-mas.org are listed at the top.

One other thing: I do list some other general CM sites in my directory, and listing those in the Wikipedia article could add value to it. My feeling is, when you can list *all* of something (or at least the best ones), then you should. But when there's no hope of being comprehensive then we shouldn't pretend to be.

I'll let someone else actually pull the plug on the listing of individual rides, or at least move it to the bottom, since it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so as I have a "competing" website on the subject. Thanks for your comments. Michaelbluejay 20:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this list on the grounds that it is, to a certain extent, unverifiable, and certainly very difficult to maintain. If any one has a good reason to reinstate it, the last version of the list is here. JeremyA (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of rides maintained here, perhaps as a separate page (List of Critical Mass Rides maybe?). The reason for this is that being on Wikipedia, anyone is able to update it and keep the list fresh. I noticed that, for example, the Toronto listing on the other linked sites was wrong. I could change that on Wikipedia, but the other sites will remain out of date (I'll go email the owners of those sites now). --Vgedris 15:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The answer is yes, numerous people have expressed interested in creating the list as demonstrated by adding their respective cities. I see no legitimate reason for one or two people to delete this where so many people are interested. Is such a list maintainable? Yes, at least as maintainable as the private list and verified just like any other Wiki: By the people who have knowledge of said subject. In this case the people who ride in those cities. I trust the list will be maintained by Wikipedians who know for a fact a ride no longer exist in such in such city or that one now does were once none did.

Further, there is value in having more then one or two list on the Internet. After all, most attendees would agree the goal is not to keep CM a secret but to grow and share the idea Sharing this information is beneficial to the reader and to CM.

Lastly, perhaps the Wikipedia's list may help verify & update the privately maintained list. (and vice versa)

This is why I restored the list, however in a nod to you two I gave it a separate page, with disclaimers and included links to the privately maintained list. --SAUNDERS 09:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


I think it was me who started the list of rides, thinking that the wiki format would be ideal for keeping the list current & maintained rather than a website maintained by a single person. Having it on a page to itself seems fine to me now that the list has grown good & long. --Chaikney 13:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laws governing cyclists are different?

I question the validity of this claim: "However, typical laws governing bicycle road users are different from those governing pedestrians and motorists. In most automobile-centric cities, traffic law heavily favours motor vehicle use, though other users are generally more vulnerable to collision."

Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists. Yes, there are some laws that apply only to drivers of certain types of vehicles. For example, motorcyclists have laws that apply only to them (mandatory helmets, special licensing, splitting lanes may or may not be legal, etc.). Also, drivers of slow moving vehicles are prohibited from driving on certain highways (typically freeways, bridges and tunnels). And, yes, there are some laws that apply only to cyclists, primarily due to the unique characteristics (narrow and low-power) of a bicycle. But the way the claim is written, if one did not know better, it would seem that cyclists are governed by a completely separate set of laws from other vehicle drivers, and that's very misleading.

--Serge 01:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "Almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists." -- this claim is meaningless by itself. Traffic law is determined entirely by individual states. Catamorphism 01:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's implied. But I can make it explicit if you want. "In all states, almost all traffic laws apply equally to both cyclists and motorists." That is, in all states cyclists, like all vehicles drivers must keep to the right side of the road (not ride against traffic), obey traffic signals, yield according to the same rules, etc. Some states have some laws that are arguably unfair to cyclists, and there are several websites that are devoted to identifying and repealing them, but in the overall picture, these are relatively minor exceptions, and the original statement justifying cyclist lawlessness due to laws governing cyclists being different from laws governing motorists is without foundation. --Serge 16:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable statement

Erased the line added by 207.6.246.148 on 05:52, 19 October 2004:

The San Francisco Critical Mass...has had an undeniable effect in exhorting local government and city planners to consider cyclists' needs and facilities in urban planning.

This used deleted a bunch of stuff on the criticisms of CM, then snuck this line in too. An important statement like is misleading without concrete evidence. Either quote someone saying it or show the evidence here... PhilCheese 06:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another picture

Enlarge

Melbourne had its 10th anniversary ride this month and I went. Here's a picture. It would be great if it could be incorporated into this page. Apparently we had a turn-out of 1400 - a new record for Melb (last biggest was only 770!).

I also created a category at commons: commons:Category:Critical Mass. If free images (ie, all not-"fair use") could be uploaded at commons and placed in that category, it would be tops.

--pfctdayelise 13:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Bike lift"

Enlarge

Do other CMs do a bike lift, where everyone takes over an intersection and then holds their bike up in the air? If so, might be worth mentioning. pfctdayelise 13:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

In Calgary, we haven't been doing it at intersections, just at the end point of our rides, (See my photos.) It's also known as a "Chicago Holdup". --GrantNeufeld 22:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
That's cool. What a shame you only use the cc-nc license. :) If you ever feel like uploading some particularly good ones to commons under, say, cc-by-sa, then see what I wrote above on this page. pfctdayelise 23:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
In New York, riders are generally being chased by cops and are too busy avoiding the fuckers (I don't have to keep it NPOV on a discussion page, do I?) to do a bike lift. Boston CMs typically fade out rather than ending; although most months a bike lift is incorporated into the ride. Favored spots include the corner of Boylston and Dartmouth and the middle of the Mass Ave bridge. How about tunnels, underpasses, parking garages, and rotaries? Do other CMs ride those in a non-traditional manner with lots of whooping and hollering?DayKart 08:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
In London, bike lifts are done occasaionally when stopped at large junctions, and when the mass visits the site of cyclist death, where it is done as a kind of salute, along with a general wassail. It is always very moving. Ooooooooo 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I have removed the section on criticisms of the mass. These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer. JeremyA 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the history diff link to review that removal (which I support). --GrantNeufeld 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. It's one thing to remove something that's unsourced if you genuinely don't believe it to be true. Those criticisms looked believable...Stevage 02:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The criticisms may be perfectly valid, but criticism only makes sense in an encyclopedia article if it is clear who it is that is making the criticism. JeremyA 03:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether it makes sense to you to have criticism in an encyclopedia article only if is clear who it is that is making the criticism is irrelevant. What is relevant is if there is such a rule in Wikipedia. I don't know of such a rule, and have seen countless counter-examples. Try to find an article about any political or controversial figure, or any ideology, for example, that does not have unsourced criticism. Good luck. I might be wrong, but I think you're imposing a standard on this article that is not generally applied elsewhere in Wikipedia. Unless you can cite consensus for such a standard, or at least cite other examples of criticism removed due to it not being sourced, I will revert the delete. Fair? --Serge 05:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a clear standard that says that sources should be cited when there is a dispute as to the accuracy of the content, whether the content is critical or not. See Cite sources. Catamorphism 05:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The Cite sources link makes my point. While citing sources is officially required, not doing so hardly justifies removal of the content. At most, placing a {{fact}} tag may be warranted, but even that is to be kept to a minimum. But an actual removal of the content based solely on lack of sourcing does not appear to have any legitimate basis. --Serge 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
RTFW: "Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page. Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper, otherwise the information should remain out of the article." (taken directly from Cite sources) Catamorphism 06:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. A) That guideline does not apply here since the information is not disputed (only the lack of sourcing is at dispute, so far as I can tell). B) If the information is disputed, then it needs to be placed on this talk page, and it should be disputed (the content, not just the lack of sourcing). Or am I missing something? --Serge 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
JeremyA's original comment: "These were not sourced, so it is unclear who it is that has made these criticisms, or whether it is just the opinion of the writer." That sounds like a dispute over the content to me. He's saying that the content may just be one's person opinion. Catamorphism 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
But one comment later he said, "The criticisms may be perfectly valid". Not much of a dispute. Whatever. I've put the comments in a new section below. --Serge 06:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

November 25, 2005: Spokane CM accused of intentially delaying traffic, about 10 bicyclists were arrested. Officers swarmed the bikers soon after 5 p.m. and demanded that they lie on the ground. The cyclists were handcuffed, lined up in an alley, hauled to jail and booked on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct. Their bikes were seized as evidence, Lt. Dave McGovern said.[1]

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

[edit] Deleted Criticisms section

For the record, this is a copy of the section on Criticisms that was removed due to a lack of sourcing, even though the information in here was not really disputed by anyone. I'm placing this here in accordance with the Citing sources guidelines. Ideally, before comments like these are put in a Wiki article, citations from published sources should be provided.

==Criticisms==
Criticisms of Critical Mass include:
  • The undefined goals of Critical Mass are not worth the confrontations that inevitably occur when a large group acts out of the ordinary in public.
  • Critical Mass generates more ill will than goodwill towards cyclists, cycling and alternative forms of transportation.
  • Critical Mass encourages lawless and dangerous traffic cycling techniques.
  • Critical Mass is sometimes dismissed as nothing more than a politicised party; some Massers turn this criticism on its head, embracing it with the slogan "We're not going to the party, we are the party!"

--Serge 06:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I should clarify my previous comments. When I stated "the criticisms may be valid" I was simply trying to make it clear that my removal was not because I think there is no room for criticism in this article. On the contrary, I think that WP:NPOV is the most important policy at wikipedia. My removal of the criticism section was based on the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy--without stating who it is that has made these criticisms how can they be verifiable? WP:WEASEL states that "If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed"--I argue that the opening of the content that I removed, "Criticisms of Critical Mass include:", is a weasel term and therefore the exact sort of thing that WP:WEASEL recommends to avoid. In the absence of cited sources I can only assume that the authors of the criticisms are also the source--if this were the case then the section also breaks the no original research policy. As for other articles that include unsourced criticisms, wikipedia has many articles that need improved--where you find unverifiable content please feel free to remove it.

--JeremyA 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at these criticisms, it is hard to say any of them are really sourceable or justifiable. I think less controversial points might be:
  • It creates confrontation
  • It may turn the opinion of inconvenienced non-cyclists against cyclists, counter to what most participants would want
  • Laws are often broken during the course of a mass
  • Although the claim is that the mass it not political and has no goals, many of the individuals involved have specific goals in common

--Ooooooooo 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to see you running by these critical comments, because it is important I believe to “document” the friction that is created when a radical idea involving self-organization and, yep!, a certain dose of chaos (study it and you have a learning system there) at a time in which our societies are looking for an much in need of new models of social organization. If someone has the time (sorry, I don’t) the answer might simply be to run a Google search of past media reports and pull out and source the complaints. Not a big deal and I think a rather useful contribution. ericbritton 09:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main article of critical mass

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

[edit] Critical Mass is not an organization.

It's just a bicycle ride. There is no evidence it being an organization. Nobody sets an agenda for CM. Dan Korn 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an important distinction, but I am not sure as to how clear this may be to most people so may warrant a couple of wise words of explanation:
CM is a “non-organization”, and a fine one at that. This is not a trivial phrase, and as a negation takes us back to the root words “organize”, not far behind which are concepts such as “systemization”, “hierarchisation”, “coordination” and yes! that wonderful word “control”. Now all of these concepts at the end of the day assume some kind of great knowledge of at least some part of the world in which we live – knowledge which we/they can then put to work to achieve Our collective entry here under Organization does a quite good job of scoping out the history and main lines of thinking and practice on this subject.
A non-organization (a category here which incidentally I rather think we should be at least considering fleshing out) is more closely aligned to concepts such as Self-organization, which here is brightly introduced as “a process in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties”
Where does that leave us? Well, as friends [Dan Korn] explains to us it is “a bicycle ride but not quite “just a bicycle ride”. I have been following CM since the very beginning since it is right up two alleys of my own interest: better and softer ways of getting around in our daily lives, and active citizenry. And I would hate to see it trivialized, not least because it is, as I see it, an important example and learning system on its own. And we badly need ‘em. ericbritton 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-section: Conflicts

Burndownthedisco (talk • contribs) added the POV template to the Conflicts section of the article. Please describe any specific concerns about that section here. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing so earlier. Feel free to remove the tag or edit it in any way that you (or anyone else) see fit; I felt that phrases like "declared war on ", "so-called "agreed upon" route". "police abuse" (the last one particularly because of its uncited nature), among others, violated the NPOV policy. At the very least, the language in that paragraph is often unprofessional and unencyclopedic; at worst, it displays lop-sided favoritism (to my eye, at least) toward the CM crowd, portraying Brown and the police as ill-behaved tyrants (whether they are or not, of course, is not the provenance of this article ;]). So, in other words, perhaps a POV tag is not the right tag for that section, or perhaps it does not need one at all, but at the very least, that paragraph needs a thorough re-write, preferably with some citations about statistics and police abuse. wilhelm 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never ridden in a critical mass, though I can't claim to be completely free of bias, and most of the newspaper reports have disappeared from the Web, but as far as I can tell, the basic truth of this section is pretty solid. A second hand quote from a newspaper at (http://www.brasscheck.com/cm/who.html) says "Brown said on Monday that he would crack down on the mass ride-along -- which can draw as many as 3,000 cyclists -- because it clogs the city's streets, stalling traffic and impeding pedestrians. He vowed to pull the police escorts now authorized for the event, and ticket cyclists who run red lights and commit other traffic infractions." Reportedly, the San Francisco Chronicle used the phrase: "Following the June ride, Mayor Brown gave a speech where, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, he "declared war" on Critical Mass and said that he would try and prevent future rides. Police began to draw up plans to clamp down on the bike ride. Editorials in the major daily newspapers endorsed the call for the crackdown." (from http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/919/critms.htm). But again, this is all second hand information.
"so-called "agreed upon" route" is certainly accurate. There are no leaders of Critical Mass, so there is no way to have an agreed upon route, despite the fact that Mayor Brown said there was.
As far as Police Abuse, that one is certainly documented in enough places, from the same site (http://www.brasscheck.com/cm/) and others (http://www.bclu.org/stories/demonstrations/lacm.html, links from these sites). When 105 people are arrested and brutalized, and none are charged, it's clearly abuse. - --205.147.11.242 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to use terms like "so-called" in an encyclopedia, and it's silly to argue about whether an emotional label like 'abuse' is justified. I just spent a large amount of time adding particulars on this page (such as exact dates, names, etc.), and feel I have thoroughly cleaned out all the questionable POV aspects in the information about the July 1997 ride. I removed what I recognized to be typical rumors and axes-to-grind. I think I avoided the temptation to give my version of what happened, and instead only included basic verifiable facts that contribute to the average reader's understanding of conflicts in Critical Mass rides.
I also removed the POV tag and renamed the two "conflicts" sections to distinguish conflicts with motorists from conflicts with authorities. I feel qualified to make these many changes, as I have been a San Francisco participant from the start of the San Francisco ride, and rode in many of the notable rides (NYC, before and after police crack-down, Budapest 2006, SF July 1997). Joel Pomerantz, a.k.a. Unclepea 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Mass wiki project?

Very disappointed to see that the excellent List of Critical Mass rides has been deleted. Any idea how one can access the old page? It was really useful.

Since Wikipedia seems to have decided the list (and possibly the Critical Mass article) are too biased, how about we create a Critical Mass wiki project? Probably the easiest way to do this would be by using WikiMedia's Wikia service (previously known as Wikicities). Anyone up for helping to set this up?

I don't think the subject is or can be adequately covered by the Cycling Portal or the Cycling Wikia.

--Nsayers 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a Critical Mass Wikia project! It's at CriticalMass.Wikia.com! I've moved the List of Critical Mass rides page that was deleted from Wikipedia. --Nsayers 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thi "List of CM rides" is redundant since there are already websites dedicated to covering that exact topic. WP's list looks like it's mostly just a copy of my own website on the topic, anyway. It's unlikely to ever be as complete and up-to-date as my own directory, which is updated almost daily. -MichaelBluejay

[edit] Page moves

There have previously been a number of moves made to this article. I think that any move needs discussed here. I personally do not see any reason why this page should be moved--this is by far the most common use of the proper noun Critical Mass. The original nuclear physics term critical mass is undisambiguated, and there is a disambiguation page for other uses. However, if this page is to be moved, there at least needs to be consensus for a disambiguation term--it has previously been moved to Critical Mass (activist), but activist is definitely not what most Critical Mass riders that I have ever met would use to describe themselves --JeremyA 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both, the request for pre-move discussion, and the realistic dissociation from the 'activist' label.Unclepea 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities that Critical Mass rides

I think this article needs something, maybe a link, or a timeline of when events first started happening at different cities to demonstrate the scale of the Critical Mass. At the moment it seems very San Francisco centric. I know events take place in Amsterdam and London, as I have attended them, but I do not know if this is a global phenonomen, and if similar events take place in smaller regional towns and cities. Catchpole 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This page [2] gives some details on the worldwide nature of critical mass. I agree the article is SF-centric, but as CM originated there, that's not too unreasonable. I think a timeline would be great. Doctormatt 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECritical_Mass_fc83.html"