Talk:Harley-Davidson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Harley-Davidson has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 23, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Motorcycling Harley-Davidson is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Paragraph 1: Cylinder Angle

'The classic Harley-Davidson engines are two-cylinder, V-twin engines with the pistons placed at 45° angle from vertical.'

I know nothing about engines, but even I can see from the photograph that the cylinders are NOT placed at 45 degree angle from the vertical - which would mean they were at right angles to each other. They may well be placed at 22.5 degrees, so they are at 45 degrees to each other.

82.26.77.82 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Every Harley V-Twin has a 45 degree angle between the cylinders except the V-Rods (60 degrees - released in 2002 as the Revolution engine). It's not measured from "vertical." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.225.250 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor handling?

I ride a harley and have ridden other brandas as well. Never tought of it as a poor handling machine. It doesn't lean like a racing machine, but it makes corners BETTER THAN ANY CAR I ever drove


I have ridden hundreds of bikes, and harleys are amongst the worst handling modern bikes I have ridden due to a lack of ground clearance, poor braking and heavy weight. This doesnt reduce how the appeal to there owners as they dont tend to be performance orientated and love the bikes for what they are.


Right, so other than opinions, does anyone care to add a citation to back up that section? Right now, it's nothing but an author's opinion. 70.185.110.60 (talk)


Are we refering to this phrase? "The bikes were expensive and inferior in performance, handling, and quality to Japanese motorcycles." If we are then that's a seperate issue to the one raised above. The section refers to the bikes manufactured in the late 60's and early 70's. I bet it would be pretty easy to find a citation. It's common knowledge that under AMF the company produced some pretty poor quality products. War (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] famous owner

Regarding the line One of the most famous owners of Harley Davidsons is professional wrestling legend The Undertaker. - I would have to disagree and suggest this line be removed, or include a more comprehensive list. Jay Leno is probably more well known then The Undertaker? Mceder 04:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Or a better way to revise it would be to list a few famous owners, not just the most famous one, as that is more or less an opinion. --Bmahoney 12:53, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The most "famous" of all Harley Davidson owners would arguably have been Elvis Presley.

The name I think of first is Evel Knievel. "Almost every jump he did was on a Harley Davidson motorcycle."War (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associated consumer risks

I guess I do not see the point of such a large chunk of traffic stats data. Would you add the same information about automobile accidents to an article about Toyota? I can certainly agree that a link to Motorcycle Safety under See Other is appropriate, but I just don't get the point. I also do not want to say POV, but the list of fatalities involving highly-experienced riders makes little sense to me as well. If those cases are relevant to the Harley Davidson article, why is the majority from the same source and relate to officers who made the ultimate sacrifice? That does sound a bit POV, no? Anyways, raising questions to start a debate. Mceder 23:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

He's spamming other articles with this *exact* info. I'm going to revert it here and in Motorcycle. It makes sense in Motorcycle safety, but not here. boinger 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The information provided is accurate. Pushing it only to motorcycle-safety results in unwarranted censorship of a major and popular article. There are significant consumer-related problems with the Harley-Davidson product line of motor-cycles that result in significant consumer-related deaths and high social costs; while some of these are also intrinsic to other motorcycle lines, the popularity of the Harley-Davidson, and the fact that it provides no special protection to even the experienced-rider warrants clear explanation of the accident and mortality information here rather than shunting readers off into a back room. The mortality examples are true and verifiable, the examples of Harley-related deaths are there to support the placement of this material on the Harley-Davidson page. Everything posted was accurate, neutrally presented, and verifiable. The "ultimate sacrifice" is a direct quote from a grieving police-related organization, which is linked. If this article is reverted, I recommend restoring my work to avoid the appearance of product protectionism and censorship. There is no wiki basis for censoring the article. Preventing readers from easily seeing Harley-related fatality information in the main article would serve no Wiki purpose or goal. If you know of one, please post it before deleting my work. David F. Traver 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan site?

The good Mr. David Traver has stated that this article resembles a fan site. He does not state, however, where the excessive trivia is or what irrelevant praise, criticism, and lists there are.

While I must admit that the order of the article looks a bit strange, with history, usually the first part of an article, being so far down in it, I am at a loss to see what he's talking about. Respectfully, SamBlob 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the fan site tag as well. Corey Salzano 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well. I've been doing some research on the edits of the user who inserted that tag. I'm coming to a conclusion that he definitely has a big beef with motorcycle companies. If you read the motorcycle safety's talk page it appears that his issue, from the viewpoint of a disability lawyer, is there is no mention of statistical data regarding motorcycle fatalities in this article anymore. I don't want to say he has an agenda, I don't want to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head, nor do I want to say that he wants to vilify motorcycle manufacturers... but it seems that he considers this page a "company portal" because another editor removed his injury/fatality statistics. The fact is that those statistics deal with motorcycles in general and does not belong in an article about one particular brand in and of itself.
I'm being bold and pulling the tag... if anyone disagrees on this, I'm willing to discuss matters.
Supersquid (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Response: As a disability attorney who has seen too many people disabled by motorcycles, I note with considerable sadness that the popularity of the Harley, especially in the hands of inexperienced riders (but also in the hands of very experienced riders such as police officers) has resulted in a very high mortality rate for this form of transportation. Due to this product's unfortunate popularity, more people are killed and maimed than if they had been in automobiles. The Harley is not inherently more dangerous than similar motorcycles, but it is an inherently unsafe product (as is any motorcycle used on a public street) and its use should certainly not be promoted. I hope that makes my position clear.

Regarding specific examples of the kind of opinions, praise, and unsourced value judgments included in what should be a neutral article, please consider the following bits taken verbatim from the article (please keep in mind that this is only a partial list, I stopped at 11 examples, but it would be easy to continue):

  • "attracting a loyal following (in marketing terms, the owners form a brand community)."
  • "These big-twin motorcycles capitalize on Harley's strong value on tradition."
  • "Interestingly, when Honda first began making a motorcycle with a 45° V-2 design, . . ."
  • "However, because potential buyers complained that the Shadow did not 'sound like a Harley,' . . ."
  • "The Destroyer is tuned to make sub 10-second quarter mile runs in the hands of an experienced rider."
  • "These big-twin motorcycles capitalize on Harley's strong value on tradition."
  • "In 2008, the "Fat Bob" was re-introduced to the Dyna line-up featuring aggressive styling"
  • "and were popular on dirt and flat-track race courses through the 1960s and '70s."
  • "For a bike which isn't really thought of for long rides or trips, the smoother ride allows for this opportunity."
  • "The V-Rod has gathered an enthusiastic following in the U.S., Europe and Australia"
  • "Bill Davidson has presented Mr Millender with a signed airbox cover to recognize the contribution the forum has made to the VRSC platform which continues to evolve with models like the Night Rod Special, or VRSCDX."

Most of these have no supporting citations. Also, Entire sections provide no citations to the contents. See for example, "Current model designations"

What you have here is a fan site. Restore the fan site tag or clean up your article. I will leave the choice to you. Kill and maim yourselves on your motorcycles if you must, but please do not promote them on Wikipedia. David Traver (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S., it would be a little less obviously a fan site or perhaps a company portal if postings were not made directly from the Harley-Davidson Company itself. See http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=Harley-Davidson (adding a history section) David Traver (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) See also: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=Harley-Davidson%20Inc&location= David Traver (talk)

A few points, Mr. Traver:
  • You used the tag improperly. The fan tag is for articles that meet specific guidelines for fandom, referring to articles based on fiction/fan fiction. Some sort of cleanup tag would be more appropriate, if truly necessary.
  • Two other editors disagreed that the tag is unnecessary.
  • This article is not a place to promote an anti-motorcycle agenda either.
  • As for your concerns regarding the wikiscanner reports... well from what I've seen from the links you posted, there's only approximately 2 edits on this page from the H-D domain, one which was reverted (museum part). Doesn't sound like this article is a portal page for the company using those arguments.
  • Most of the editors on this page seem to be good about reverting obvious commercial advertisement edits.
  • A LOT of the items that you have a beef with have been in the article a while without dispute.
  • "Kill and maim yourselves on your motorcycles if you must, but please do not promote them on Wikipedia" and "...an inherently unsafe product (as is any motorcycle used on a public street) and its use should certainly not be promoted." sounds WAAAAAY too POV to me.
There's MANY more issues I have with your statements above; I will not go into details other than to say that I feel that neither you nor I can objectively edit this page without coming into dispute. You have an anti-motorcycle/anti-motorcyclist agenda, and I am a biker and a Harley enthusiast. Oil and water, Mr. Traver, oil and water.
I'd like to hear what the other editors have to say about this.
Supersquid (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Traver does have an obvious anti-motorcycle bias, but, to an extent, he also has a point. Many of these comments need to be verified. Documentation of the sub-10-second time of the Destroyer is easy to find, but the statement might be better suited to an article on the Destroyer in particular. While the "fan site" tag is inappropriate, and is insulting to those editors who have included sourced, formatted information with a neutral point of view, this article does need cleaning up. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sam, I have no objection whatsoever to a cleanup or a cleanup tag; I agree completely. One of the things I think should be done: move the history section before the engine or model designations/descriptions section. And, of course, references. No argument there.
I just get REALLY obstinate when someone pushes their view to take away or denigrate my (or other's) freedom of choice, right to take risks, etc. It's the rabid Libertarian in me... totally at odds with Mr. Traver's ideologies. Further ranting/raving is inappropriate to this talk page and will be curtailed <biting tongue painfully>.
I'll see what I can pull up for references and help clean up stuff. I'd definitely like to see this page become a featured article!
Supersquid (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I do most certainly have a point of view and it is clearly anti-motorcycle, but I am not anti-motorcyclist. Indeed, I have the deepest respect for those who have been injured and killed by these horrid devices, and I respect you as well. Just as I don't want my point of view to show up in a Wiki article, you don't want your pro-Harley POV to show either. You folks have gotten so close to your subject that you can't see that your own pro-motorcycle bias is obvious in the article. I welcome the comments from those who recognize that this article is far from bring a featured article. Take a look at a few actual featured articles, come back, and clean up your work here to match. Get rid of all of the unsourced and POV materials in your article and work from there. Until you do that, it is little more than a Harley ad, a company portal, and a fan site, which neither you nor I want. David Traver (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here from WP:3O 3O is for disputes between two users, no more. It looks like there are a few people involved here; I would recommend taking it to the Mediation Cabal. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

David Traver has some good points about the language in the article. Also, SamBlob and Supersquid make an excellent point about the unconventional organization. Does anyone have any issue with straightening up some of the language, reorganizing the article, and putting in some {{subst:Fact-now}} tags for some of the casual assertions? –BozoTheScary (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The article looks better with the history section moved.
Now, quick question... the section The Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Gt Britain & H.O.G. sounds kinda awkward; anyone else agree? Change the section title, cut some of the weird wording and fluff out of it, remove the "famous Harley owners" part (as we all know, those "lists" often get WAY out of hand, and besides it's in the wrong section anyway!)... and maybe make it a subsection of another section? Any thoughts? And what about "Harley in popular culture"? It's got little in the way of notability (I think that there are more iconic films that could be listed than "Wild Hogs", or more notable bands than "TNT"). Just some thoughts to bash around.
I've also changed some of the wiki-links, to link to either more appropriate articles or specific subsections of articles (I really take exception when a link about Outlaw Motorcycle gangs points to the Motorcycle club article itself instead of the subsection on OMGs; makes one think that motorcycle club = motorcycle gang. I'm sure the Blue Knights MC HATE that confusion (Blue Knights, for those that don't know, is a club consisting of active duty or retired law enforcement personnel).
Any other ideas?
Supersquid (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "famous Harley owners" bit should be scrapped. It is mere trivia and (of course) incomplete. Aside from the mention of subculture groups, "Harley in popular culture" should probably go also. I'm thinking of combining the subculture bit w/ the two "The Average Harley-Davidson Rider" paragraphs to make an intro for one "Harley-Davidson culture" section, into which "Origin of Hog nickname" and "The Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Gt Britain & H.O.G." (aak) can be moved as sub-secs. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous owners

The trouble with scrapping the famous owners list is that it is crabgrass. It is like the "notable residents" section of place articles. You scrap it and it reappears uglier than before. This article has lots of contributions, but not enough stewardship to keep removing crabgrass. I vote that we make it a section with an unordered list to make stewardship easier. It also serves as nice nerdbait for vandals and folks who just want to make a contribution. –BozoTheScary (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then call me "Roundup" lol! I have no problem cleaning up those kinds of issues! I prefer to keep it to either a VERY short list, listing WHY they are notable (ie Jay Leno has a LOT of bikes, and he's done some article publishing in regards to motorcycle maintenance), or eliminate it completely.
Supersquid (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I already axed it while being bold here. Of the only four listed, Elvis and Jay Leno are realy the only "enthusiasts" of note. It had been there awhile without any weed-like growth at all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Much grooviness. Works for me. –BozoTheScary (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No progress on Cleanup

Almost nothing has happened in the re-write of this fan site. So, I picked one section (the introduction) to clean up. I removed the POV and unsourced statements. Please include citations for any re-writes. Please note that the article title refers to the company, not the products. They are not synonymous. You may wish to consider breaking the product into its own page and not mixing discussion of the company with the company products. An article about Harley motorcycles is not the same as an article about the company. In the alternative, break out the discussion of the corporate entities and history into the first half of the article and include the discussion of the product lines in a subordinate section. Thank you. David Traver (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus before removing factual content, even if unsourced. If you feel a statement requires a source, place a {{fact}} tag on it. Don't forget to hold your pov in check. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Since I am the only non-fan editor involved with this article, I think it is safe to assume that if I wait for a "consensus" there will be no chance that any substantive changes will be made to clean it up and remove all POV and unsourced materials. [1] Please prove me wrong with your prompt clean up of this fan site. Let's turn it into a real, accurate, well sourced, neutral Wikipedia article rather than a Harley ad. David Traver (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How about adding sources yourself, instead of just chopping away parts you don't like. I'll try to find some sources as well. Deal? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine, but wouldn't you agree with my comment that discussion of the corporate entity is not the same as discussion of the products? I suggest that we editors promptly go through the article first and reorganize it to separate discussions of the various corporate entities and product lines. Then we can address the finer details of sourcing. Most important to me is prompt removal of all of the POV errors. See for example the the list I provided previously. [2] With regard to all of this, I am am working to avoid a revision war. To this end, I have alerted the readers to the serious POV problems with this article and our discussion here by adding a POV tag to the article, rather than placing several dozen source and POV tags throughout the article. Thanks. David Traver (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It is difficult to separate the company from the product, especially if the company's business activity is not diverse. See BMW, Lexus, Coca-cola, Smith & Wesson, etc. Of course, if we can improve the organization of the article, I'm all for it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. I don't see it as being difficult at all. I'd be happy to do it if you wish. It would take about 10 minutes. David Traver (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I oppose such a split, without consensus. However, you may want to give it a try in a sandbox for demonstrative purposes. I don't believe it's difficult to cut in two; I believe it is difficult to have separate articles on the company and the product with enough context without having so much overlap that a merger down the line would be likely. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- ps: Besides, then we'd have two article that need lots of work, rather than just this one. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I definitely oppose splitting the article. When someone says "Harley Davidson", what comes to mind? Motorcycles. Not the overpriced clothing, not the tacky memorabilia, not the expensive accessories... motorcycles. Splitting the article would be an administrative nightmare; more than likely, with what Evb-wiki mentioned, that it'd get re-merged again down the line anyway.
Now, as for POV. Mr. Traver, please stop calling this a "fan site." It just reinforces your own POV. As for us Harley enthusiasts... well we know all the warts and bumps that goes with the Motor Company. The AMF fiasco during the 70s (honestly, it's not leaking oil, it's marking it's territory), the expensiveness of the bikes and all in sundry that has a Harley Davidson logo, the horrible expensiveness for dealership labor ($72/hour, even for an oil change?!? No spank you!). And personally, I used to ride a Suzuki without any qualms whatsoever... an 83 Suzuki 650 GL. It ran great, handled wonderfully, and started at the drop of a hat, even though it was a kick start. Matter of fact, I'm kinda irked that they stopped making the Honda Valkyrie. The main reason I went Harley is because of the Navy Exchange New Car Sales program; they only offered, for motorcycle sales, Harleys.
It doesn't matter what a person rides, as long as they ride. I give the "biker wave" to ANYONE on two wheels, regardless if it's a "crotch rocket" or a cruiser (except for bicycles or Segways lol). Yes I like Harleys... I like ALL motorcycles. ESPECIALLY the old Triumphs, Indians, Harleys, and Hondas (my friend lost his restored '69 Honda in a garage fire... I cried for days lol!) Do I have a brand preference? Not really. Oh granted, I currently own one, and am proud of it... but that happens regardless of the person and their ownership. Do I have a preference for motorcycles? You betcha! Does that make me POV to Harley? No. Does that make me POV in your eyes, Mr. Traver, because of your anti-motorcycle crusade? Most likely. Did ANYONE have a POV issue with this article before you came along? Doesn't seem that way IRT the talk page. Yes, Harleys have a distinctive sound and styling. Yes, quite a few Harley enthusiasts are loyal to the brand. Yes, H-D is the only American cycle manufacturer that stayed in business from the very beginning until present day. Yes, there is quite a bit of Harley bias, both for and against. Many other facts in this article are true... it takes some time digging through all the 'net and periodicals to find supporting statements. Rome wasn't built in a day. I feel that you, Mr. Traver, wouldn't be happy until this article is stripped bare of anything but corporate information presented in a negative light (which you would consider to be NPOV), with the actual cultural and product information buried in some obscure section of Wikipedia so that VERY few people would see it, in order that they not be exposed to those "inherently unsafe" (a HIGHLY POV statement BTW) motorcycles.</rant>
I recommend that we get a peer review started on this article, to get a true understanding at what, besides references (which are in progress), we need to work on to get this to Featured Article status. THAT would be the ultimate proof... THAT would, without any bias for or against, be a litmus test as to the article's neutrality.
Supersquid (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I welcome the idea of making this into a featured article. I suggest you get started. By the way, I do not want to put my highly POV statements in the article, although I am happy to discuss them here on the discussion page, where they belong. If I did put my anti-motorcycle POV in the article, I would not be following the Wiki standards. All I ask is that you not give the public such a blatant POV article and that you follow the neutral policy standards for the main article too. Give the public a neutral article that is well sourced and we will all be happy. David Traver (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

OK I've been trying to find sources for what's been tagged... and for other items that I think might get tagged for whatever reason. Hope this isn't overkill. I do have some questions regarding the acceptability of at least one possible source I've found [3]... at least it isn't a verbatim yank of this article here, like what I've seen before (answers.com and so forth). Think it'd be acceptable for a source? Also if someone can doublecheck my reference tags to ensure that all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed, I'd appreciate it! Don't have too much experience with reference tags.

Something I've noticed... all the cite tags are on alleged NPOV statements that present H-D positively... yet the ones disparaging H-D (ie "Hardley Ableson") are not tagged. Kinda suspicious, if you ask me....

Supersquid (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V-Rod and Revolution Engine

Currently I am editing the Revolution engine section, putting in some references, cleaning it up, and so forth. Now, I feel the Revolution Engine section is a poor place to discuss the various V-Rod models; that should be moved to the V-Rod section itself. So, I commented it out, for later cleanup or restoration. Anyone disagree with that assesment?

Supersquid (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not on my part. It would be best if someone could write a V-Rod article, move most of the info to that, and let the V-Rod section be a summary of that article, as was done for the others. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'd love to see a more detailed article devoted to the Revolution engine. I started the original Twin Cam 88 article because I'd spent many hours rebuilding them. I wish I had the knowledge to do the same with the Revolution. I'm sure someone out there has done some wrenching on this motor. Please get something started. I'm sure it will take off.War (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fatboy name

"There was a controversy that the Fat Boy model was allegedly inspired by the name of the bombs (Fat Man and Little Boy) that were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The company vehemently denies this and claims it is coincidence."

As far as I know, and have read, the name Fatboy directly represents the bombs. This is a little hard to deny when you take into account the origional paint job (silver with seven yellow stripes, in various places on the bike). This, along with the solid disc wheels, like the B-52's ('07 and '08 models have holes in the wheels that are the same size as the .50 cal. rounds the B-52 guns used, and have conchos and studs shaped more like bullets). While I know the company says that it was not meant to offend, it's a far reach to say that it was coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FXSTSB (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Boy, if you've got the source that says all this, add it to the article and quote the source in an inline citation. It would help if the source said what the significance of silver with seven yellow stripes is supposed to mean. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh... I have to raise the BS flag on that one. Seems to be too much of a "grasping at straws" thing. Has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. Snopes.com lists it as an urban legend, so does The Independent. Can't find a single, verifiable reference that doesn't list it as such (not counting blogs where it's always "a friend of a friend who's 3rd cousin works at the dealership said...") I mean, bullet/weapon themes are found on a lot of bikes/bike accessories. Ever seen the .44 mag handgrips/footpegs? Ever seen tank art done up in a "nose art" theme, complete with imitation bullet holes? Motorcycles are macho-manly, guns are macho-manly...
Still, it's all about verifiability. Found two against, none for... I'm going to mark it as "listed as an urban legend by snopes.com" or something.
Supersquid (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's an Urban Myth it is a very old one. When Fat Boy first came out for 1990 a young guy down the street bought a brand new one. He knew I liked bikes and rode it over to show me. First thing he did was to explain the A-bomb & B-29 connections to the Fat Boy. Apparently it was an inside joke from the very beginning as this new owner heard it from the dealership at the time the Fat Boy first came out. Did the dealers make the story up and conspire to spread it? Or did they hear it from a higher authority? Draw your own conclusions...Herbwag (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the addition of this to the article is original research. Remember, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the verifiability issue was addressed as I wrote my addition (which you undid) around the Snopes Urban Legend link. All I did was to explain the Fat Boy name legend in greater detail and the times in which it was current. Why suppress what many of us remember and lived thru including Harley dealership "Honda Drops" and "Samurai Slams"?Herbwag (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Because, without a reliable source, including what many of us remember and lived thru is the definition of original research, which is not permitted. If a source can be provided for the info, it is welcome. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I hear ya. I'm still new to wiki. I wonder if somewhere in my files I have an old article about a Harley dealership "Honda Drop" or "Samurai Slam." I'll have to look. I know that I have a photo of well-known H-D personality attending one.Herbwag (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hells Angels beating their old ladies with chains

Hi guys ...

actually I was just cruising by looking for a good 'timeline' template to use for another article and couldn't help myself tinkering with your engine. Your timings all shot.

  • Does anyone actually have a valid reference to suggest that Hells Angels "beat up their old ladies with chains"? (Or the balls to post it). Nope ... did not think so. So I pulled it.

I have to say, putting it into language I am sure you guys will understand, that for a rather fine motorcycle with an outstanding and colorful history, you sure have a nasty looking piece of unreferenced shit here as a topic, bros. There is so much fluff clogging your oil ways that you are going to cook your heads in no time unless you clean it all out. Quit bitchin' and start strippin' it down to rebuild it. Ain't that what's winter fer?

I mean, I sure am glad that you are having 'Edit wars' rather than Turf wars but cant any of you pull a few oily books from under your center stands and show some respect around here?

" Get your motor runnin'
Head out to the library
Lookin' for citations
And whatever references comes our way ..." etc --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (with apologies to Steppenwolf)


[edit] POV Tag

I have replaced the point of view tag. This article is much improved since my last visit, but it still has an obvious points of view with unsourced materials. For example: "Harley-Davidson established the Harley Owners Group (abbreviated H.O.G.) in 1983 in response to a growing desire by a new breed of Harley riders for an organized way to share their passion and show their pride." Similarly, consider the "leadership regained" section. Leadership in what way? Who says so? In the same light, who says that the "reputation" was tarnished? These are points of view, using words such as "venerable." There is still a long way to go to turn this from a fan site into a neutral wikipedia article David Traver (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As everything you just mentioned IS sourced, and your user history with all articles related to Motorcycling, I am removing the tag. I believe, being your specific history, it would be best if you bring up all wanted changes or perceived flaws you have with this article on the talk page first. Thank you. Hooper (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not about "my history." Any passer by would see that the article has bias problem. For example, the use of the word "venerable" to describe the product name is obviously POV. See my prior postings above on this page for additional examples of POV.

I am very much anti-motorcycle as they are used on public streets and highways. They are unsafe at any speed. However, I do not want my POV in the article, I want it to be neutral. As it stands it is little more than a Harley Davidson company portal and a fan site. Please clean it up before you remove the POV tag. David Traver (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) See also, for example, this unsourced pov opinion in the article. "Harley-Davidson established the Harley Owners Group (abbreviated H.O.G.) in 1983 in response to a growing desire by a new breed of Harley riders for an organized way to share their passion and show their pride" This article is improving but there is still cleanup to do before the point of view tag can be removed. I ask that contributors to the article please remove the points of view to ensure that this meets the Wikipedia standards. David Traver (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Traver, you are going against consensus. YOU make broad claims about this article being too imbalanced and not impartial, but YOUR POV is definitely coloring your opinions. YOU are the only one that has an issue with the article, YOU are the one that is pushing a POV. YOU are the **ONLY** one that is having an issue. I am going to ask for arbitration on this article in regards to your agenda pushing, as I am getting sick and tired of this anti-motorcycle slant!!!
Supersquid (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Before I file a request for arbitration, does any other editor on this page believe as I do that Mr. Traver's POV slant is unjustified or unwarranted? The article is not, as it stands, up to Featured Article status yet, but it's a work in progress. It's a former Good Article, for crying out loud! It wouldn't have gotten that if there wasn't some merit and balance to the article to begin with. I don't believe that we can get ANYWHERE with Mr. Traver in resolving this, as I do believe his accusations are totally unwarranted now, so I do believe we need a third, neutral party to make an unbiased decision on this article. If you are interested in a RfA or some other dispute resolution process, or object to this idea, please leave me a message at my talk page.
Supersquid (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the tags at the top of the talk page, it is still a Good Article, and it was so when it was a lot worse than when the good Mr. Traver made his assault. It was improved much between getting the GA rating and the placing of the "fan site" tag by Mr. Traver, and it has been improved rather a lot since.
The only valid point I can readily see is the "Leadership regained" subsection, which does not state what kind of "leadership" was regained, or even what kind of "leadership" was lost. Apart from that, I'm not sure what the man is going on about. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
While I recognize that much of this article is inadequately sourced, I do not believe that it is anywhere near a "fan site", as Mr. Traver previously claimed above. There is plenty of criticisms identified in the article. I do not believe the POV tag is warranted. Of course, Mr. Traver has not attempted to tone down any of the rhetoric of which he complains, nor has he provided any additional sources or citations. It seems clear that his admitted bias colors his repeated tagging of this article. He is the only passer-by that has complained of a perceived slant. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the current tag. Even though alot of this actually is common knowledge (i.e. they did have a bad reputation during the different ownership, etc.), we still need to reference it. Hooper (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing needing references. I do believe that we have quite a few references already... and that the inline citation needed tags are sufficient. I don't think an overall ref tag is necessary, and I DEFINITELY don't think that we need the POV tag. Just my opinion, though.
Supersquid (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK we are down to only THREE citation needed tags in the article. Not too bad at all. Does anyone believe we need more citations in the article? Does anyone object to removing the improvereferences tag?
Supersquid (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You've made good improvements. Take a look at the Harley-Davidson engines, Model designations and Model families sections. I believe they are still insufficiently sourced. I wonder if, for purposes of those sections, the Harley-Davidson website might work as a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm trying to contribute to the article as I get time, as I've been pretty busy with work and getting some certifications done. I do believe that engine/model/family data can be sourced from the Harley website, as it is purely technical data. Having primary sources for technical data and company/model history/timelines come from the company website should not be an item of contention at all. But, some of their information is lacking, especially in model code breakdown. I have some good sources for that, I'll go ahead and add them in.
Supersquid (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a test of updating the model codes... what do you think?

==Model designations==

Harley model designations are a sequence of letters and numbers, combined in different ways. [1] The sequences can be long, as in the 2006 model designation FLHTCUSE. Additionally, the designations are not always followed by the company.

The first letter of the model designator indicates the engine/model type:

  • G Servicar three wheeler, 1937 to 1972
  • E Overhead valve 61 cubic inch "big twin" (Engine/trans separated)
  • F Overhead valve 74,80 or 88 cubic inch "big twin"
  • FL 80 to 88 cubic inches and a fat front tire. (Also 74" 1941-82)
  • K Side valve 45 and 55 cubic inch sports bike; replaced the WL in 1953 and was replaced by the Sportster in 1957.
  • U Side valve 74 or 80 cubic inch "big twin"
  • V Side valve 74 cubic inch 1930-36. (Also 1935-36 VLH, VHS 80, and the modern V-Rod series)
  • W Side valve 45 cubic inch made 1937 to 1952
  • X Sports and special construction. Applied to 1918-1922 opposed twin Sport, 1944 military opposed twin, and 1957 to present Sportster.

The second letter may indicate the front end, depending on model:

  • X Narrow tire and sport forks.
  • L Wide front tire and Hydra-Glide front forks.

The next set of letters may indicate the frame type:

  • D Dyna frame (rubber mounted engine)
  • HT Highway Touring frame
  • ST Softail frame

The last set of letters may indicate the specific model:

  • A Military (Army) version (except GA, Servicar without tow bar)
  • B Battery start (early models), Belt drive (early 80's) Black paint (1995-6 model, the Bad Boy)
  • C Classic, Competition, Custom, various others meanings
  • D Dyna, the newest frame and engine mount design
  • DG Disc Glide
  • E Electric start
  • F Foot shift (when the standard was hand-shift) and now "Fat Boy"
  • H varied between High performance, hand shift and Heavy duty
  • I Signifies Fuel Injection
  • L Big fat front tire
  • LR Low Rider (though many Low Riders don't include LR in the model ID)
  • N Nostalgia
  • P Police version
  • R Rubber mounted engine (some models) racing version (other models)
  • ST Soft Tail
  • S Springer
  • S Sports version
  • T Touring
  • WG Wide Glide
  • X Sportster or sportster-type front end and Skinny front tire
Does that work for everyone?
Supersquid (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request and Archiving of Talk Page

First... would anyone be adverse for me placing a Mediation Cabal request tag on the article, such as this: {{subst:Medcab-request}}? I asked for Third Opinion, and it was recommended to ask for the Mediation Cabal to check instead.

Second... the talk page is getting big. Any objection to archiving it, and starting a new page?

Supersquid (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also second archiving. 2003 posts waay up above. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good move. 207.162.181.238 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the use of mediation. Also, I suggest that you move the portions of the article dealing with fan clubs onto a new article. That would help resolve the problem of this being a fan site and also make the article more concise. I notice that none of you have addressed your obvious bias in favor of the Harley company and its products.
I am not a passer-by. As a legal professional involved in the area of disability law I am very concerned about the harm caused by this very unsafe form of transportation and the death and disability it causes. I have not edited the page extensively as I would like to do and I have not reinstalled sections about the hazards of these machines out of deference for the majority of authors on this article.
However, the authors appear to be utterly oblivious to their own biases and unmindful of the high casualty rates for operators of these dangerous devices in comparison to operators of automobiles. Also, they are oblivious to the social costs, including increased Medicaid and Medicare costs for those crippled and disabled by these awful gadgets. In the same light, because of the marketing and fan base of this product, ridership is higher than it would be if ownership were not encouraged. As a result, the relative popularity of this product adds to the high social costs. I want this page to be neutral as required by Wikipedia standards and I do not want it to be supportive of motorcycle ownership. Likewise, I do not wish to have it biased against the Harley Company. I want the same thing you do, which is fairness and neutrality. As it stands the article does not meet those standards. Let's clean it up and move on. David Traver (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's hold off on archiving until we've finished mediation. Supersquid (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps archiving the threads that have not been active for six months or so might be worth while. I'm surprised it hasn't been done before. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Let us note though Mr. Traver that most motorcycle accidents are the fault of the other individual. Possibly mention the harder-to-see motorcycle as a factor, but all vehicles wreck. Hooper (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Seems everyone agrees to informal mediation.
Nice to see a fellow Wisconsinite(s?)... we seem so rare :-)
So, hrmm... Already hints of arbcom? Why? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest holding off on the archiving because prior complaints of pro-Harley bais were posted by others, but disregarded or simply shouted down by the obviously pro-Harley "consensus" contributors to this article. To see the tip of the social consequences caused by the dangerous devices that the contributors to this article promote, consider your fellow motorcycle enthusiasts who are now in nursing homes at an age where they should be playing baseball. See for example, this report from Oklahoma. I am not citing this report for any proposition regarding helmet laws, but rather the statistics and comments regarding morbidity and disability in general.
Regarding Hooper's comment that "all vehicles wreck," that comment is true, but not relevant. The casualty rate for motorcycles is so high and the social costs are so great that an article on Wikipedia that blithely serves as a marketing portal for various clubs, retailers, and a manufactures should be cleaned up to meet the standards of neutrality and objectivity. Failure to do so will continue to encourage motorcycle use on highways and streets, which is harmful to the riders and the community. Note that I have no objection to people using motorcycles off of the streets, as long as they have enough health insurance and long term care insurance so I don't have to fund their casualties with my taxes for the next 30 years. Become quadriplegics if you wish, but please don't make everybody else pay your medical and long-term care bills. Supervised nursing home care is very expensive. David Traver (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you add these details? Most of the contribs are tags... Have you read through the bold, revert, discuss cycle? The idea is you make a bold edit, someone reverts you, and then we have a discussion about that edit here. That way we can focus more on the article than our POVs on the issue :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Just make the edits so we can see them. If you have stats (such as there are x number of motorcyclists in america and y amount of them have wrecks, which is way more than the x amount of cars and y amount of wrecks ratio, etc.). Just make those edits. Why don't you have the same complaints for the Suzuki, Honda, or other Motorcycle company pages? It is for those reasons that we are skeptical. A motorcyclists has the same right to the road as a car driver, period. A wikipedia user has the same right to know your stats if you have them or any information. So just do it. NPOV edit it in and let us all try to make it better. If you have a problem with the article then fix it, don't just complain about it. Hooper (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If you choose to do such, here (http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/motorcycle-accident-statistics.htm) is a link with some very good non-biased information on the increase in fatality rates and also the increase in motorcycle ownership. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the motorcycle fatality to motorcycle ownership ratio is grossly larger than that of automobiles, as all the searching I just did proved that it wasn't. I could be missing something, just trying to help out. Hooper (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please. The article linked above does not even mention Harley-Davidsons. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, this is not about trying to make the article better. As Mr. Traver has repeatedly stated, it is about protecting readers from being incouraged to engage in an "inherently dangerous" activity. His agenda is clear. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Without an agenda, there would be no reason to write about motorcycles ;-)
All I'm saying is: we engage on the merit of introduced text, not an editors POV. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The link I made just is a start base if he is wanting to get stats on Motorcycle accidents. That is all. Then he would need to put that information on every motorcycle manufactor page not just H-D. I'm just trying to assume good faith in him and help. Hooper (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The safety and accident section I previously wrote in this article was removed by the aficionados. It was criticized, whittled down, removed, to the point that even links to motorcycle safety were removed. Check the history and you will see the progression. I've been there, done that. You can save some time by reverting to the section that was previously removed.
I will be happy to write and add a "criticism" section, but I know that it won't survive, after all, this is fan site and company portal and I am not a fan. The point of Wikipedia is not to maintain any point of view other than neutrality. It is possible for you fans to write a neutral piece and it is possible for us opponents of motorcycle-related injuries and inherently unsafe products to write with neutrality too. The key is to use the real Wiki standards and get rid of the obvious bias in the article. For example, move the references to fan clubs to a new article that is clearly about fan clubs. There you can use the fan club tags in the footer to help readers find your fan clubs. Delete the POV information about reputation and the like. I'm not seeking perfection, I just hate to see Wikipedia used as a dealership marketing tool and glee club. David Traver (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are only 5 contributions to this article under this name, though... Were you not logged in? Try editing anyway :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
He did once go under the user name User:traverlaw if I'm not mistaken if that helps X. Hooper (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I know :-)
It doesn't really matter, just wanted to see the diff. Still, boldly edit! Xavexgoem (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is where I lose you. Reading the page, it doesn't come across at all (atleast to me) as POV. It seems to just categorize the history of a company and what that company does and make and its effect on its customers. What particular parts seem "fan club" to you? The only thing I see you mention in the past was the part about the buyout when they seemed venerable and had a tarnished reputation, but that is referenced and known fact. Its not being POV, its just stating how the public at the time felt about the company. If you can give a list of the areas of the page that seem fan clubish to you we may be able to work out a way to make it not so. Hooper (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

Mr. Traver:

The problem I have is this: A motorcycle (regardless of it's manufacturer) is just a piece of metal/plastic/rubber. It is no more "inherently unsafe" than a paperweight. I can drop a paperweight on my foot and break it; is that the paperweight's fault? Of someone else can come along and drop said paperweight on my foot; is that still the paperweight's fault? Should I sue the paperweight manufacturer for making an "unsafe product?"

It's all on how one drives/rides, and how the ones that you share the roadways with drive/ride. If I am driving distracted and I kill myself or someone else, is it my car's fault? If I am driving under the influence and I kill myself or someone else, is it my car's fault? If I am driving recklessly and I kill myself or someone else, is it my car's fault? The problem is, is that no one wants to own up to driving/riding unsafely/stupidly, and blame it all on a product.

If I were riding safely and sanely on a straight, flat, deserted stretch of highway somewhere, and my motorcycle's wheel fell off, and I crashed and died... then it WOULD be the manufacturer's fault. However, the majority of crashes resulting in severe injury/disability or death can be DIRECTLY traced to either the rider's fault or the fault of the person with whom (s)he collided. No one forces a person to speed like a demon through traffic at night, whipping back and forth around traffic, while being drunk or high. Likewise, no one forces the other driver to drive aggressively, not looking or signaling, while talking on a cellphone and shaving/eating/reading/applying makeup.

So, I am taking a look at the fatality data for vehicular activities (from dot.gov). In 2006, there were 24,087 fatalities from car crashes, 22,290 fatalities from light truck crashes, 4,732 fatalities from heavy truck crashes, 299 fatalities from bus crashes, and 4,935 fatalities from motorcycle crashes. So, based on that information, I think that cars and light trucks should be outlawed... they kill more people than motorcycles, right? Cars are inherently unsafe, right?

When I get on my motorcycle, I do EVERYTHING in my power to ride safe. I KNOW I do not have a seatbelt/airbags/rollcage. Proper PPE (personal protective equipment) like helmet, goggles, leather gloves, long sturdy pants and/or chaps, sturdy boots, leather jacket and/or sturdy long sleeve shirt, brightly colored and/or night reflectorized upper garment... all that is worn anytime I ride, day or night. I obey the speed limit, I pass ONLY when safe, I follow at a four second interval, I keep "head on a swivel" situational awareness regardless of the riding situation, I don't ride when road/weather conditions are unsafe, I ensure my motorcycle is properly maintained... in other words, I take responsibility for ensuring I am riding as safe as possible and I am as situationally aware of those around me as possible.

Life is a crap shoot. You can follow the rules all your life and still roll snake-eyes. Hell, you could live in a bubble until you're 30 and die from boredom! Besides... everyone will die eventually. There is NO antidote, no guidelines you can follow, to prevent that. I don't want anyone telling ME how I should live my life... "oh I know what's best for you, poor baby, since you can't take care of yourself, let me protect you." Hogwash! Do you propose to end "inherently unsafe" activities like skydiving or bungee jumping? OK... then what's next? Where does it stop? Until everyone is forced to be encased in bubblewrap and not allowed outside the house?

That is my issue with the anti-motorcycle bias.

The editors here have done much to provide references and cut out fluff. What do you consider "pro-Harley?" If you would PLEASE stop with the rhetoric about "inherently unsafe" and "fan site" and "company portal" on virtually EVERY single post, and TELL us what is wrong with the article WITHOUT the diatribe, then we could truly get somewhere. As it is, your insistence on mentioning the aforementioned rants every time you post harms your statements of requesting neutrality. It's like if I were to slap one of my students every time they make a mistake, instead of providing positive feedback and encouragement... it makes the person(s) you are addressing resentful and inclined to "tune out" any further feedback. It is also like saying "do as I say, not do as I do" every time you make those statements... how are we supposed to be impartial and neutral regarding the article when you continue to blast your OWN, SELF ADMITTED, non-neutral point of view at EVERY... SINGLE... CHANCE... YOU... GET!!!

I still believe your vested interest in this article is the safety data that was inappropriately posted by you, and removed BY CONSENSUS, with you as the sole objector... and now you are trying to cause problems with the rest of the article as a result.

State... in fifty words or less, your EXACT issue with the article, WITHOUT once using the words "fan site", "company portal", "inherently unsafe", etc etc ad nauseum. Be succinct. Be honest. Realize that this is about the COMPANY and the MOTORCYCLES they make, and all that goes with that... not a general article on motorcycles themselves. Realize that safety statistics are inappropriate to one single brand of motorcycle unless the other manufacturer articles have corresponding data as well, not just generalized statistics.

If anyone else disagrees with my assessment of the situation, please do not hesitate to respond. I know that I am not perfect.

Supersquid (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV means representing all points of view neutrally. No one has a neutral point of view, particularly on talk (ahem). That's why I'm saying make the edits, revert the edits, then discuss the edits on talk, else we're stuck talking about the editors. Not good. The only consensus so far is against a tag. If we have premature consensus against an editor, then that's a problem, because he hasn't contributed what he feels is right. You can't convince him of that otherwise, likewise as he has not convinced you. Is this an encyclopedia or a forum? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in hearing from somebody who is not a Harley fan regarding the "neutrality" of the article. So, let's have arbitration. You are exactly right, this is about words and ideas, not people or personalities. Let's get somebody to look at the article who is experienced in evaluating the neutrality of an encyclopedia and giving critical suggestions to fix it, if indeed it needs fixing. Then we can all move on. Cheers. David Traver (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not what arbitration (WP:ARBCOM) does ;-)
If you have legitimate, sourced complaints about Harley Davidson, then put it in the article. If you don't, then there's no problem to the project, aside from a large debate on a talk page. You folks can jabber all day, if you really want to...
Just put your stuff in the article, and we can work from there. It's how a wiki works. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Honest answer: I would believe the article were neutral if not for your objections
It's the same in any article. Evidence of consensus is almost always lack of evidence of non-consensus :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a very Zen-like assessment :-)
OK I am putting the onus of providing detailed, legitimately sourced complaints upon the detractor(s). If I, or the other editors, have a legitimate issue with the statement, we will revert and discuss on the talk page. If a specific source regarding injury/disability/fatality of Harley riders can be found and inserted into the article, I am TOTALLY OK WITH THAT!!! I would prefer government-agency surveys (ie Department of Transportation, either at the federal or state level) or surveys from known, disinterested agencies, than from consumer advocacy groups that may have an agenda. Is that acceptable? I do not believe that general motorcycle safety statistics belong on a specific manufacturer's article... not just Harley-Davidson, but Honda, Suzuki, Triumph, Indian, Ryuko... etcetera and etcetera. Instead, would placing a link to Motorcycle Safety in the See Also section be acceptable to ALL? I am all for it... I highly encourage learning and practicing motorcycle safety.
As for make/model descriptions and history thereof... it is appropriate and acceptable in the article. Any dissent?
Culture of Harley-Davidson is also appropriate and acceptable in the article. It cannot be separated from the main article, as I can guarantee that it would be merged back into the main article at a future point in time. This happens a LOT here at Wikipedia... moreso with small or stub articles. Again, any dissent?
Supersquid (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, instead of reverting, editing out the more contentious things and placing them here for discussion :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. I want neither "Harleys are the BEST BIKES IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE CHUCK NORRIS RIDES TWO AT THE SAME TIME WOOHOO!" bias nor "Harleys are deathtraps that will devour your soul, kill your parents and grandparents, and cause WWIII while just being parked in your garage!!!" bias.
Supersquid (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I ride so I'm not going to try to explain why I may or may not be bias. It's obvious that I am. I'm also informed, which is more than I can say for anyone that doesn't or hasn't ridden. There is only so much you can learn about riding safety from statisics and personal accounts. Nuff said about that.
I believe the issue of bias are very often about adjectives, adverbs, and metaphores. For example: "Harleys have a 29 degree lean angle." That is a fact for some models. Compare it to, "Harleys have poor, 29 degree, lean angle." Well the only reason the second is debatable is that it is out context. It is actually true if it's set with the proper context (compared against another brand under specific conditions).
So, I recommend the we keep the descriptive wording (keeps the article from being boring) and that we strive to frame the favorable or unfavorable sounding sections in a context that turns them from bias to truth.War (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another question, a general good place to include Motorcycle Safety data/concerns may be the Motorcycle article itself? Just a though if David would consider that possibility. Hooper (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The Motorcycle article does have a section on safety. The section there point to this article Motorcycle safety. I think motorcycle saftey concerns are best placed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licencing section, maybe?

In the subsection formerly titled "Leadership regained" (which I have retitled "Restructuring and revival") there is a reference to the Ford F-150 Harley-Davidson Edition and to the proposed H-D museum. I don't think either is appropriate there, but I don't know where to put them.

Since licensing of the trademark is a significant source of income for the company, should there be a section on licensed products? This would include the F-150, the accessories... and all the small businesses that the company has given cease-and-desist orders to for including the name in their business name or advertising.

This should probably be done with careful reference to guidelines and to other articles about companies that license their trademarks, so as not to cause another travesty. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the ford and museum, maybe a "Other Ventures" section or something else worded fancy. But I also see how a licensing section may be more open ended for additional things they do. Hooper (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great reference tool for Firefox users

Check out [4]. It automates wikicode for web references for those that use Firefox.. Should make life less tiring in adding references (hint hint).

Supersquid (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Case

If no one else has an objection, I think we can consider the case closed. I appreciate Xavexgoem's (good thing I don't have to pronounce his name lol!) help in getting us to refocus on "the edits, not the editors." His humor and Zen-like wisdom, I feel, has been a breath of fresh air. :-) Also, if no one objects to closing the case, should we go ahead and archive most of the remainder of the talk page? It's still pretty lengthy.

Supersquid (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No Zen here. Just wiki :-)
I'll close the case but hang around (only because medcab's case-page has gotten rather large); I'd appreciate it if you kept the mediation bits un-archived for David when he gets back :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Hooper (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Works for me... how long should we wait to archive? One week sound good?
Supersquid (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, even now if you want. sorry for the later reply :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 08 CUTBACKS/LAYOFFS

Should it be noted that after H-D released Q1 earnings, they notified dealers that they would be cancelling some product lines and cutting some jobs? Hooper (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you've got the reference(s) handy, go for it! Company layoffs/product cancellations are noteworthy... I'd say stick it in after the Agreement in India section.
Supersquid (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm searching. The only refs I have are from HDnet, which is a dealership login site so I can't really link it because its useless to people without the information, and its not really for those purposes. As soon as I get 3rd party links, I'll add it. Hooper (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)