Talk:Motorized bicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Motorized bicycle article.
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.

Please read the archives for a history of the discussions relating to this article.


Contents

[edit] Factual accuracy issues.

The factual acuracy of this article is disputed... though some pictures and videos have been removed and are await the end of an edit war as well as a discussion further up in this talk page as well as a mediation, this document still has factual accuracy issues that need to be resolved. ie.: Regards to: the photo of Triumph bicycle, video of power-assisted bicyle, expansion of the article, regional discrepencies. etc... and logistic of the article planing. --CyclePat 03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Precisely which facts are you stating are inaccurate? Details with citations please. As it stands the issue seems more that it does not conform to your vision of how it should be (see WP:OWN). I have removed the tag in the absence of any evidence of actual factual inacuracy. And those redlinks are still red. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the disputed tag again. Please do not re-insert it without giving details on this page of the facts which are supposedly inaccurate. Note that there seems to be a lack of support for Pat's idea that this page requires mediation or any other intervention. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The disputed tag is for *factual disputes*. It is not for if you are disputing something that was removed. There is no tag for that. It's just for factual disputes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes 29 January, 2006.

  • Unlinked electric power-assist system again since (a) there is unlikely to be a valid article with that precise title and (b) this article is already covering electric power-assist systems. What is the point of adding this redlink?
  • Removed and according to Wired News - USA is becoming increasingly popular from Electric section because we already say this higher up. Why say it twice?
  • Note that the video does not work on the computer I am using (unlike other ogg videos).
  • Removed the video
  • Power-assisted bicycle. (file info)
    • Riding a power on demand, power-assisted bicycle In case of problems, see media help.

it crashed the player on my own Windows XP machine and in any case the copyright details make it perfectly plain that this is CyclePat's home video of his homebrewed bike, which was removed from the 'pedia by consensus ages ago.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You have obviously removed any information pertinent to the make and model of this type of vehicle within the OGG file. (and as I have stated, maddening, considering the circumstance you have brought up!) You have also put into question the validity of this page and on whether we need to expand the article into a different branch. This is because on one hand you say that this is a generalization of motorized bicycle. It being so shouldn't we then have sub-article that are more specific to the subject. Within the last day you have removed the red links (you so avidly ask me to try and fill-up) to motor assisted bicycle, power assisted system, etc. You have also, taken the liberty to remove a perfectly well sourced information (ie.: Wired USA news article stating that electric bicycle power assist systems are become more popular stating that this already mentioned in the article. However it is not mentioned in the electric bicycle section (where it should belong). You have discriminately picked on me. What is the issue with series hybrid cycle, you seemingly don't have any mean deleting sprees to do on there. Finally on the other hand you refuse to expand the article of motorized bicycle and have voted deletion most sub-articles related to the issue (except when I don't create it). Witch one is it. Do you want to have a general article on motorized bicycle, (inherently sub-articles will be need for this) or do you want to have a complete article? You also fail to acknowledge that there is a dispute over this article. Secondary to that, if you can't recognize that, at least recognize that the fact that you deny that their is even a dispute is a dispute in itself and hence the article is in dispute. Perhaps for the video instead being so pessimistic we could get things off better. I will send you an email. You will need to respond and then I will send you the video file (not the OGG) perhaps then you may be able to format the file in a viewable format. For now, until this issue is resolved, I have put the video back in and put the article dispute back at the top. I hereby request that after your next reply this conversation be brought into private mediation. --72.57.8.215 18:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to the dispute: another comment to support the fact that there is a factual dispute. If power-assisted bicycle is considered to be it's own machine here in Canada seperate from a motorized bicycle. If we label a power-assisted bicycle as a motorized bicycle we may be leading people to think it is a motorized vehicle when in fact no one is really sure what this machine is. --72.57.8.215 18:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a factual dispute. The article can -- and does -- explain that different jurisdictions have different definitions. That's all that's needed. Please stop doing this. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then it must be a dispute of NPOV. as per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. "While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." This article is clear from the start that it is entirelly "selected". Not only that but the information is not totally substantiated and as per WP:AD : correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: wikipedia:see cite your sources. --CyclePat 19:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed again, in the absence of any credible evidence of actual factual inaccuracy. Pat, if you think there is factual inaccuracy you could fix it. But there is no factual inaccuracy, only a failure to reflect your POV. Has it never occurred to you that the fact that so many people have told you that you are wrong here might actually mean that you are?
I have now managed to play the video. It is of no particular value in illustrating the article, IMO. Quite paart from the fact that it is you, riding your homebrewed bike, taken with your camera, the level of detail is too low to actually show anythign meaningful: it is a bike moving along under its own power, without pedalling. This is pretty much exactly what is implied by the phrase "motorised bicycle". Some kind of illustration of a pedelec might well be in order, but I really don't see how your home movie adds to the sum of human knowledge here.
As far as NPOV goes, the article seems to be perfectly acceptable to everyone but you. Since you have a vested interest, serious consideration should be given to the possibility that it is your POV which is not neutral. If you add the tag again without showing some genuine verifiable fixable factual inaccuracy I will interpret it as vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, YOU ARE the VANDAL here, you have repeatedly removed the dispute label when it clearly states in WP:AD that you should not remove it until the issue is resolved. The article contains a particular strong amount of "information which is particularly difficult to verify." The reason is it difficult to verify is because YOU keep removing well sourced information and summarizing the information. You pick and chose what you want. Inherently you are creating a POV. As per wikipedia:NPOV dispute "The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view." secondly, "Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms," sugesting that our "power-assisted bicycle" is a in fact a motorized bicycle. The article is simply biased, expressing viewpoints as facts.
  1. "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." (note I had a perfect source for this but you deleted it and transformed it into a POV sentence.)
  2. "Motorized bicycles are distinguished from motorcycles by being designed to be powered by pedals alone if required." (who said this... is this your POV... or I should say OUR POV?)
  3. In countries where there is a strong bicycle culture (notably in Asia), the motorised bicycle is particularly popular. (again who says that? Why should I believe it is popular? this is pure POV)
And that is just within the first paragraph. I haven't even started. Now... I'll put the article information dispute back in. I'll continue listing the elements of dispute. Once we fix that first part.
For the video I think it is totally naive to eleminate a video because of it's quality. That's what you said. I take your edits as a personal attack as per WP:NPA. You have stated that I "have a vested interest, serious consideration should be given to the possibility that it is your POV which is not neutral." I believe you in violation of so many rules you can't even see it ie. WP:NPA states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." You have removed the video because you feel (I am associated with the company CyclePat). You have discredited and attempted to discredit every edit I do. No. Really you have gone to far. Secondly for the video by removing it you are inherently agreed that it doesn't have it's place in this article. This being said it is only logical for this video to placed in it's own seperate article. You are hence contradicting yourself on your previous nomination for deletion of the article pedelec. Where should this video be placed? You say it is poor quality. The moon walk is also poor quality. You say it is not meaningful. THAT IS PURE POV. PURE POV. I'dd bet you 100$ that some stranger that is not so familiar as you would be happy to see this video. And just like the space shutle launch, I'm sure this video can be incorperated. --CyclePat 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
On step ahead of you guys. May I sugest you read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Responses_to_How_to_Build_Wikipedia%2C_Understand_Bias and pay particular attention to the comment: "I agree 100% with the view that we shouldn't just delete whatever we regard as being biased, and I think The Cunctator is right to harp on this point. I personally have seen only a few egregious examples of unwarranted deletions, but I agree that there has been a problem along these lines." --CyclePat 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Your ability to find support for your position in the furthest reachjes of Wikipedia while simultaneously failing to spot how what you are doing is addressed in WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and the multiple comments from other Wikipedians never ceases to amaze me. What you are in effect saying is that even though you have an acknowledged bias and are pushing a barrow, we should let you get away with it because you think we're wrong when we say that your POV-pushing is POV-pushing. Sadly, long experience leads me (and others) to conclude that POV-pushers are rarely best placed to objectively assess the merits of their own work. And those redlinks are still red.
As stated above, the tags are removed because THERE IS NO DISPUTE. No facts in the article are known to be inaccurate, therefore placing a factual accuracy dispute tag on the thing is wrong, and replacing it after it's removed is vandalism and removing it is not vandalism. Further, your POV is provably non-neutral. Failure of the article to conform to your POV does not mean the article has an POV problem, it means you have a POV problem - in fact you seem to have a m:MPOV problem. Please stop adding tags! This is an encyclopaedia article, and it covers the topic neutrally and accurately. Just not how you want it covered. But you are biased (everyone is). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have showed you some proof. (up above there is at least 3 examples of NPOV) now it is your responsibility to show me your side, try to convince me it isn't or maybe even work together at making the article better. The fact that you don't acknowlege those afformentioned example is another example of your lack of cooperation. And the fact that you just reverted the tabs that say that there is a dispute is a clear indication that you can not see the problem. I sugest we leave those disputes at the top and head for an outside POINT of VIEW (some editors that are not involved and then contrast with our ideas on the subject) Mediation may be required, or the use of advocates. Unless you have some better sugestion. Because doing a straw poll, as you are attempting to do below, is not going to solve the problem. Unless of course we proceed differently and publicly (as per AFD, which seems to be, unfortunatelly, seems to be the most common procedure to receive comments about an article... even when it's not necessarilly an article that should be deleted.) Again, This article is in dispute about the content of the video, the NPOV (the non-sourced documentation, etc... THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT IS THERE. It just means the way it is substantiated (sourced) is flawed and need re-writing. --CyclePat 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope. You have shown that the article does not match your POV, which is a different thing. I see no evidence of biased content in the article and I see no evidence of factual inaccuracy in the article, which is what those tags mean. I see plenty of evidence that you (alone) don't like the article, but it is also apparent that anythig other than your own vision is unacceptable to you, which makes it your problem not the article's. You forget, we have now had at least three admins and severla others come in and give an outside POV, all of whom decided you are wrong. Eventually you are going to have to accept the fact that the problem is you, not the article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This locking of the article and refusal to investigate further into the NPOV is seemingly bad. According to NPOV :"In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation." And though I may seemingly agree with some of the formulation such as the electric motor has recently seen an increase in popularity., this is a PURE POV. We need to do ass sugested and add the source information. (note I had a perfect source for this but you deleted it and transformed it into a POV sentence.) Secondly I feel like this is an attempt to keep things hush hush. You have removed the dispute and removed the NPOV and we are Still arguing about what!!! Preciselly that the NPOV and the content dispute. A sugestion further down in NPOV states: "Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reworded to a more NPOV version. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be reworded to "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by many". Even better would be, "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre", as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs has poor habits" can be reworded to "Joe Bloggs has often been criticized for his habits, by observers such as Momar Kadafi and Anwar Saddat." Perhaps we should follow that as a guideline. As per WP:NPOV#a simple formulation "But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."
Finally as for the video I believe that it should be put in. you have not added any valid point that don't violate WP:AP and the NPOV argument "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?" --CyclePat 23:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The premise that NPOV should be published is based mostly on the fact that it says that right within the rule. something along the line of: If you feel there is a POV issue you are probably correct. I'm not making this up. Also, the fact that you have removed the NPOV and Dispute warning at the top of the page has me questioning your motives. Consiquently, I wonder if it is because you don't want this page to be flaged and have the attention that it needs or if it is because you seriously believe these issues are not there. No matter the case my belief that NPOV violations are occuring is still strong. And it would ease the situation if you could explain your arguable conduct of wiki policy violationson such as, why it is you are so adiment at continuessly removing those article dispute and NPOV tabs? Now...
Now according to WP:NPOVUW rules from Jimbo himself. "if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" Furthermore it goes on to say "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." This being said. The NPOV clearly says that it is possible to expand our article into seperate articles. Not only that but, it recomends we do that. The fact that you remove the video of a power-assisted bicycle only seems to substantiat the fact that perhaps it is time to have a seperate article for electric bicycles and power-assisted bicycles (unless of course you have changed your mind on the inclusion of this video). Secondly... I still see some unsubtantiated remarks in the article... everything on wiki should be verifiable. So perhaps I should be putting veriable information.
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 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. may be the case --CyclePat 01:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again you are dredging support from the farthest reaches of Wikipedia whilst blithely ignoring the core policies. You have already weasted far more of the community's timeon this issue than can be justified by any sane assessment of its importance. As you will see below, the POV problem is only apparent to you, which indicates (as has been stated multiple times) that it is your POV which is out of line, not that of the article.
I'm not going to go through line by line but merely point out one glaring and self-evident contradiction: you say that to state that electric motors are increasing in popularity is POV, but then you declare that removing a duplicate sentence saying that electric motors are increasing in popularity is also POV. WTF? It is cumbersome and unnecessary to cite a source for every single sentence in an article, especially when the truth of it is undisputed and self-evident. The entry of Giant, one of the world's largest bike makers, into the electric bike market is a powerful sign that they are increasing in popularity, wouldn't you say?
It is very clear to me that the "POV" issue you perceive relates solely to the fact that this article categorises electric bikes as motorised bicycles, which does not help your lobbying for legislative change in Ontario. What we are arguing about is not what is in the article, but the fact that you want a different article altogether, which is not supported by consensus. The only POV problem is you and your POV. So go and stick the NPOV tag on your user page instead. We have already talked about the addition of trivia, I gave an extensive example of why not all verifiable information should be included, paper or not (this is also by common consent). And those redlinks are still red.
But you keep coming back and you keep trying again and you keep repeating the same arguiments and you keep forking the article and you keep tagging it and you keep trying other processes - and always with exactly the same result: people tell you that you are wrong. What will it take for you to believe it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and Disputed

Will ANYONE other than CyclePat who thinks there is ANY evidence of EITHER factual accuracy OR non-neutral POV in this article as it stands please step forward and give details. Please note: that is anyone OTHER THAN PAT. Just to be absolutely clear and unambiguous here, this question is NOT FOR PAT, it's for anybody else who thinks that there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or bias in this article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aside: I couldn't resist to say,... "Ooooooooh! Will the real slim shady please stand up, please stand up!" --CyclePat 22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it. Disputed tag can only be used for factual problems with an article, not with things like removing video. The tag even says that. It says "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". It cannot be used in any other case. NPOV tag is only used if there is a dispute over the neutrality of an article. Again, I don't see that here. Adding and removing video doesn't add or take away from NPOV. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more needless disputation

To-do list for Motorized bicycle: edit · history · watch · refresh

This is the new Proposed TO-DO list from the discusion on the talk page:

Implementation of a reference system as per WP:CITE

--72.57.8.215 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Guy above. You're trying to make something out of nothing. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:CITE. All information that is not properly sourced may be removed. I higly recomend you start encouraging someone to start adding the sources for the above issues. --CyclePat 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There is some information that is self-evident. "The sky is blue" doesn't need a citation. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And I highly recommend that you start listening when others tell you that you are making mountains out of molehills. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again Pat has made it appear as if a perfectly decent and accurate article is some kind of POV nightmare, when it is Pat's POV, not the article's, which is out of line. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another tag

Removed the {uncited} tag. As stated above, there is no known issue witht he neutrality or factual accuracy of this article, no fact stated is in the least contentious, so there is no need to provide a reference for every sentence, as Pat seems to want.

The "issues" Pat identifies are non-issues. The only person seeing them as issues is the only person who is known to have a vested interest. Pat, if you think there are minor issues with things like the Bionx (and that really is a seriously trivial point), then fix them. Don't slap a box on the top which makes it look as if this entire article is someone's private soapbox, because the only soapbox I can see here is the one you are standing on. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have violate WP:NPA. The reason you suplied for removal of this tag are a clear violation of WP:NPA. You have clearly stated vested interest here. This is not an argument that is appropriate or even logical for the removal. --CyclePat 15:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You have a vested interest (read the definition of what the temr means), I do not. See above where User:Katefan0 agrees with me that you are "trying to make something out of nothing". I have reverted the dozens of ridiculous tags you added, and am still waiting for any substantive demonstration of actual dispute over factual accuracy. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't prove what's not there. SPecially when we are missing information citations. I will shortly reverted back. --CyclePat 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Not only that but you have now violated the request for article expansion rule. This is getting ridiculus. Please pay attention to the subtle changes. Thank you.
Like Katefan said, you don't usually require a citation for "the sky is blue". Since nobody but you is disputing a single fact, and that only late in the game following your failure to get your way through multiple other processes, what you are doinjg is simply vandalism, violating WP:POINT. I looked at the "subtle" changes, and frankly they were nto that subtle. Like adding yet more tags to support absolutely no dispute but your own. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me try and say this a little nicer. I understand that you don't need to say the ski is blue. But if you start saying the blue sky is popular than you are getting into a POV. The article on several occasions leans into this. That means we are presenting presenting a POV as if it where the truth. We need to present the POV as something someone has said. To do that we need to substantiat the information. To substantiate the information we need to very and WP:CITE and expand the article. --CyclePat 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me try and say this a little clearer: since you are the only one who has a problem, the problem seems to be you. You are currently asking for citations for about a dozen facts which have been in there unchallenged for months in order to make a point about the removal of yet another piece of trivia. The net result is that a perfectly decent article with no known factual inaccuracies looks like a ocmplete dog's breakfast, with more tags that Turkey's claim to Cyprus, because one person (that would be you) is on a mission to force their POV against consensus. Fuck it, I'll leave the tags in and let everybody see just how ludicrous they are. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved text

I have moved the text In a parallel hybrid motorized bicycle' man and machine are mechanically coupled [...] from the intro to the Electric section. It is not part of Pat's dispute. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived

Archived again. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 on March 24, 2005.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

I am interested in this subject and perhaps converting my bike to a power assisted one. I think it would be very useful to list sources for electric bikes and conversion kits.—Who123 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am wary of including commercial links because it opens up the gateway for every other electric bike/conversion kit manufacturer to post thier own links. What is "worthy" of being included in the external links section could prove troublesome later, especially since the industry is dominated by very many small players. I suggest you try google instead, keywords such as conversion kit electric bike and electric bike will give you sufficient results(yours truly got started with those keywords).--Chicbicyclist 10:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps links to dominant message boards are appropriate since those are hard to come by even with google.--Chicbicyclist 10:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that WP is not for advertising. I think that the primary concern must be the reader. Once the reader reads this article they may become interested in buying or converting. Right now this reader (such as myself) is left without external links to find more information about products. I think because these products are hard to find that links to dominant message boards and/or dominant manufacturers/dealers are appropriate.—Who123 12:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I second that proposition! Nevertheless, there is also a good point about opening the flood gates. That is why I support WHO123's proposition but with the obvious wikipedia restriction... So long as we conform to wikipedia standards and that the links we provide are relevant links to companies that may warrant their own wikipedia article or that are essentially notable! I wouldn't go posting my companies's name "CyclePat's Electric Motor Assisted Bikes" or my buddies web "Acclivity." www.acclivity.com. So yes, it's a good idea! Secondly I would also argue that we should be talking a little about those companies in this article. I mean we already have some links to Giant Lafree, Bionx, etc... --CyclePat 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (originally posted 14:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
I have continued with my interest in purchasing a bike or converting my old bike. At this point in time I am thinking about buying a "Giant Suede E electric bike" from NYCEWHEELS. I know that WP is not for advertising but this topic is so obscure that it is hard to find information. You may wish to include Giant and EZ as manufacturers at least. I am not affiliated with any of these companies. I am just trying to find the best bike for me.—Who123 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merges

I, for one, think both merges should take place.—Who123 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image suggestion

It would be helpful to include a picture of a contemporary electric bike with small hub motor such as a Giant or Ezee.—Who123 10:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/t/Talk%7EMotorized_bicycle_cc4d.html"