Talk:Dodge Tomahawk

Speed and undue weight

I'd suggest going to WP:UNDUE and carefully reading all of it. The issue throughout is not giving disproportionate weight to minority views. So this section blanking by Sennen goroshi doesn't seem to take the sources overall into consideration. The importance of its speed isn't found only among the minority; it's the overwhelming majority. The Tomahawk's speed is covered as the first and often only topic. If one was going to remove content because only a minority of sources discuss it, then the main targets would be the development process, the design, the aesthetic reviews, the Detroit Auto Show. Speed is the one topic virtually every source covers. The extreme speed claims are in fact the only reason this concept vehicle can even be considered notable. Take that away and the topic probably wouldn't survive an AfD. — Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Devoting 50% of the article to some petty squabble over tongue in cheek comments regarding hypothetical top speeds of a vehicle that never made it past the concept stage, is undue weight. End of story. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The quantity of content reflects the content in the sources. I don't see how you can even be saying this without mentioning any sources at all. Things like the Detroit Auto Show devote one or two paragraphs to the Tomahawk. Entire articles of hundreds of words discuss nothing but the speed claims. Journalists continued to press company officials for answers, first at Chrysler then at Daimler. Do you dispute any of that?

Read the sources yourself any show me how this topic isn't this significant. Since you don't base your claims on sources, to me it appears that you just don't like it. But you liking it isn't a factor. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you have made a lot of edits on this article and feel that gives you some form of control over it, but I'm afraid that isn't how Wikipedia works. I agree that the article needs to mention the top-speed and the fact that it has never been proven. But, it's highly delusional to expect 50% of the article to be spent on that bullshit. Take a look at similar articles, for example the Bugatti Veyron article which far more press concerning its top speed, now look how much space is devoted to the highly publicized and discussed top speed of the Veyron - not 50% buddy. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

First, I know you know how to indent a comment.

Second, do not use accusations of editor behavior offenses to get your way in an content dispute. If you think I have violated the Ownership of content policy, then go to an appropriate noticeboard and make your complaint there, not here. Casting aspersions is not acceptable, so quit while you're ahead.

The Bugatti Veyron isn't similar at all. The idea that the car could possibly reach 250+ mph was never disputed, and it was in fact tested multiple times. It wasn't a mere boast. There can always be questions with production car speed records whether a sufficient number of units were built to qualify as production, was the test performed correctly, and so on. But everyone knew it was a supercar and a contender for the record, and that it was a good faith effort to set the record.

The Tomahawk is not remotely similar. First, 420 mph!!! Not remotely comparable to 250 mph, not remotely comparable to the speeds any similar bike could do. And experts are pretty sure the bike couldn't even go 100 mph without crashing; it's slower than a Kawasaki Ninja 250. If experts were saying Bugatti Veyron couldn't even go 100 mph, it would be a big deal, and much attention would be given to the controversey.

The reason this article needs to spend that much space explaining it is that the details are specific to the Tomahawk. On other cars, you don't need to explain how an engine works or how speed tests are done. We have other articles on that and they apply to all relevant cars. Bugatti Veyron can just link to those articles. This is a case of the sources (not me) spending a great deal of time asking could the bike ever possibly go 420mph? How do we know? Why would the even say such a thing? Dodge Tomahawk can't link to any other articles explaining why the Dodge Tomahawk's speed claims were questioned or what suppositions were made about the subject by various experts.

The bottom line is other stuff exists. It's great that other articles are what they are, but this topic is this topic. I'm beginning to suspect you haven't even looked at the sources at all. You're stubbornly refusing to mention them at all. Your entire argument is based on WP:UNDUE and the undue weight policy is all about sources. What do the sources give weight to? An undue weight NPOV violation means giving more weight to something than the sources do. When I say we are giving a proportionate amount as the sources, I'm referring to the citations in the current, stable version of the article. When you claim we are not doing that, then your job is to show how the sources don't devote that much weight to the speed dispute.

So. Take your WP:OWN crap elsewhere. Take the WP:OSE crap elsewhere. Talk about sources or stop wasting our time. Sorry to be short with you but you popped up out of nowhere and blanked half the article with a snide, dick edit summary. If you now want a collegial discussion, don't be a dick.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"First, I know you know how to indent a comment." That's good to hear, now indent your own comments and leave mine alone. "it's slower than a Kawasaki Ninja 250" that's great original research, can I use you as an official source on the article? "The idea that the car could possibly reach 250+ mph was never disputed" Did you read the article? The Guinness book of records disqualified and then reinstated the Veyron's record, there was considerable controversy about the Veyron's top speed, so it's a very good article to compare to this one. "Sorry to be short with you" no, I don't think you're sorry in the slightest, but it's okay - I understand you are taking this personally, so I won't hold it against you, buddy. " If you think I have violated the Ownership of content policy, then go to an appropriate noticeboard and make your complaint there, not here." why should I? Are you unwilling or incapable of holding a polite and productive discussion here? Talk pages are where we can solve issues like reasonable adults, rather than wasting the time of admins on various noticeboards. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron isn't even a WP:Good article. How is it now the gold standard we have to aspire to? It's filled with overlinking, it has edit notes warning off editors over controversial changes, a history of edit warring... Wikipedia has millions of articles where editors are still hashing it out. They're not model articles. And now you're arguing that Bugatti Veyron fails to give due weight to the sources? If what you say is true, your time would be better spent over on that article adding more content on this Veryon speed controversy, which you're telling me was given more attention by sources than Wikipedia currently does. There's your WP:UNDUE problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Uninvolved party

As an uninvolved party, albeit a former content contributor, I feel the balance is good in the status quo revision (Special:permalink/917800467). There was a lot of industry observers asking questions not only about speed but about industrial design and marketing generally, and the former motivates the latter. What was Chrysler's goal? Publicity. How did they get it? By making outrageous claims and presenting an interesting-looking prototype. Sources definitely back this interpretation. In the end, this is an article both about the artifact and about the human behavior before and after its creation: namely, design and development engineering, and marketing. Leaving out details concerning the latter would be a mistake. Quoting myself (January 2016, talk Archive 3): What makes this vehicle notable (and you'll find this in virtually every source) is partly the styling, partly the place an outside-the-box halo vehicle has to play in modern auto shows, and partly the specific performance claims. These are all well covered in the draft and poorly covered in the mainspace article, to its detriment. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A quick search of the edit history casts a little doubt on your claim to be uninvolved, but that won't affect my comments. I agree that the article should most certainly reflect the performance claims made and the reaction to those claims, I don't however think that should take 50% of the article. In the article's current state it reads as if it was written by a fanboy who got personally offended by this bike and decided to go on some form of crusade against it. There needs to be balance in the article, which right now it is sorely lacking. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the article is 3,010 words, and only 710 words discuss speed, we're actually only talking about 23%, not 50%. You're demanding we delete 652 words of the 710, reducing the content on speed from 23% to less than 2%. The Doge Tomahawk is famous for supposedly going 420 mph, and you can say you agree the performance claims and reaction should be covered, yet we devote only 52 words to it? The current version easily meets your (arbitrary) standard of less than 50%. 710 is less than 25%. Problem solved!

You did also blank the critical reception section, but that doesn't cover the speed claims at all. The article is about a design exercise, a corporate statement of its vision, and yet you don't want any weight given to the reaction to that? Zero space given to any discussion of the merits of the design, or how it succeeds or fails at enhancing Chrysler's image? When that's the whole point of making the Tomahawk in the first place? Did you blank the critical reception section by mistake? The only way we can even reach this magic 50% threshold you're claiming is to confound the speed claims with the reactions to the design and the branding value, yet you've made no argument for why that's even relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me ask something really nicely, please don't indent, edit or change my talk page comments in any way. No threats, no insults, just a politely worded and respectful request, thanks in advance. The critical reception section is as much of a hatchet job as the speed claims section, but as we are attempting to compromise, I guess a little of it can stay, for example the first paragraph. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing respectful about deliberately making the talk page difficult to read. It's blatantly disruptive and an obvious attempt to provoke more WP:BATTLEGROUND ediing. Please stop.

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments suggest that we ignore you henceforth: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines (such as indentation, sectioning, and signatures), you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Other editors may simply ignore additional posts that flagrantly disregard the talk page formatting standards." By ignore, I mean remove the {{undue}} template and cease attempting to reach consensus with you. Is that what you'd like? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

My comments are perfect legible, the fact that you have been able to reply to each and every one makes it abundantly clear that they do not "render material difficult to read". Your constant reformatting of my comments (along with constant "take it to ANI" comments) just demonstrate a combative and disruptive attitude. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think we're done here. Sennen gotoshi doesn't want to engage seriously, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments and nobody else has expressed support. Please start a new discussion if anyone has undue weight issues related to sources, and wishes to follow basic talk page decorum. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't wish to interact with me on this article, then it's your call not mine. I will just proceed with my edits in line with Wikipedia rules. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus for major changes

Why did the article undergo such a major change from [23] to [24]? I assumed this article was the work of multiple editors who gained consensus over time for the current version, but I was wrong. You took it upon yourself to copy/paste your own version of the article, wow. I guess that is BOLD. It's also totally unacceptable. I wasn't so wrong when I suggested you might think you own this article. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

We usually post a diff like this: [25]. The change was described by its edit comment, and was replacement with a well-discussed draft. My quotation above was part of the consensus building. Using a draft is a normal and acceptable way to reach an agreement on new content. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dennis made that edit not you. This article is suffering from WP:OWN issues and no amount of targeted harassment against me will change that. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Then you should go to WP:ANI and suggest having me blocked or banned for violating the WP:OWN policy. "This editor has worked on an article! This same editor objects to blanking half the selfsame article! WP:OWN violation! WP:OWN violation!" That's definitely going to play well. Why not go do that now? Or drop it and focus on using this talk page to discuss how to improve this article? It is a policy violation to go on casting aspersions in inappropriate forums, especially given that you've been warned. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we edit and interact in different ways, Dennis. While you find constant disputes and visits to various admin report boards to be productive, I prefer discussion and respect. I find the idea that someone would try to get someone blocked for merely forming an attachment to an article to be ridiculous. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Walters not a "cycle guy"?

Regarding designer Mark Walters, himself not a "motorcycle guy": I recently reverted a change made by an anonymous editor. However this might be a mis-quote. Cycle World quotes Kirt Bennett saying "I'm not a motorcycle guy...". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)