Talk:Dodge Tomahawk: Difference between revisions

RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to remove "extraordinary". The majority opinion is that it is WP:OR and a WP:PEACOCK term. AlbinoFerret 02:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Should the word "extraordinary" in the second sentence current lede section be removed? The current wording is: “Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts inland speed records…”

Include your !votes in the Survey. Yes means to remove the adjective. No means to keep the adjective. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion.

If any editors want any other RFCs, I will try to work with them to develop neutrally worded RFCs.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• No — Only insofar as we choose any wording which communicates the consensus among all the expert sources that the claim of 300+ mph top speed was extraordinary (i.e. unlike any other manufacturer claim) or outlandish or physically impossible or hyperbolic or bullshit. Many other words would suffice. It doesn't have to be the word "extraordinary" but we can't treat this claim as plausible, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes A neutral point of view is everything to wikipedia. The moment we start using language based on our conclusions, or portraying outside opinions as fact, we might as well be writing a blog. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes See my two comments as Third Opinion above. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes "Exceptional" is an original conclusion not supported by sources. Furthermore, it is not even exceptional in a common sense estimation, as claiming a vehicle could do a million miles an hour would be, as it is readily conceivable that a speed in the 400 mph range could be achieved by a contemporary vehicle. What is being inferred is that the claim is exceptional considering the Tomahawk's design, or when compared to the current speed record, or both, and we need a reliable source to make those comparisons. --Tsavage (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like this is moot since the word doesn't appear here anymore. Current text "claims were derided by experts" looks OK to me. Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The word doesn't appear any more because Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) went ahead and deleted the word under discussion without bothering to wait for this survey to be resolved. So all this discussion is moot if it's back to edit warring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There already seems to be sufficient local consensus for the change, with three editors in agreement, in the relevant section above. An RfC is simply another section, with a wider call for input. We can request an administrative close at the end, to confirm a result, and we can also request exactly the same administrative close on the previous section (any section can be closed and consensus gauged, not only RfC sections). --Tsavage (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No. RfC's don't work like that at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - "Extraordinary" is an unencyclopedic term. Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Unencyclopedic" is a meaningless pejorative. It's equivalanet to I just don't like it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not say there are "unencyclopedic" words, and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC cites it as an excample of a fallacious argument. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, "extraordinary" is a peacock term we should avoid using. In fact, it is actually included in the list of peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not a list of proscribed words. It's a list of words that are sometimes a problem when used in the context of touting the subject's merit. In this context we are stating the well-sourced fact that this claim is unprecedented, not commonly practiced, and beyond the bounds of plausibility, which our sources demonstrate in extreme detail. Zero sources argue it's plausible, meaning that to balance the scales to create 'neutrality' Wikipedia editors to put their thumbs on one side. Whichever alternative words we choose, we must communicate what the sources tell us, not some imaginary neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, using "extraordinary" to describe top speed would be "touting the subject". I'm not questioning the reliability of the sources. Balance would mean not using peacock words. Meatsgains (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The subject is the Dodge Tomahawk, which is not being touted with the word "extraordinary". It did not say the Tomahawk was extraordinary, nor did it say that the top speed was extraordinary. It said the claim of 300+ mph was what was extraordinary. Which it is, both in the sense of being physically impossible (bordering on supernatural) and in the sense of being nothing like the norm for concept vehicles, let alone production vehicles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, per WP:PEACOCK. The discussion is not moot, once it completes it will prevent any further edit warring over addition/removal of the word. “WarKosign” 08:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes the article should be npov. there was too much bs on the top speed using words like deride and extraordinary. the article is much better now. Zachlita (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I would be more than happy to take a neutral position on between the two points of view that the 300+ mph claim is silly or plausible if there were any credible, expert sources we could cite who argue that it is at all credible. The reason Wikipedia's voice should clearly say this is "extraordinary" or "outlandish" or what-have-you is that we only have one argument from our independent sources. There is no "controversy" because a controversy requires two or more different points of view, and one of those is missing. There is original research going on when editors, lacking any sources to support it, play Devils Advocate to prop up a point of view with no reliable, credible adherents.

  The same would be true if Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could carry it's rider into outer space to the Moon. All our sources would tell us that's impossible. This is nothing like the very common practice of manufacturers exaggerating the power or performance of their products by a plausible amount. Wikipedia's WP:FALSEBALANCE section of the WP:NPOV policy says we do not give equal weight to nonsense such as the idea that the Moon landings were faked, or the conspiracy of lizard people, and so on. A good guide for this would be the Featured Article Nostradamus, whose lead says, "Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power," which is analogous to the sentence "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records." We inform the reader clearly that rational experts in the field strongly reject the paranormal/extraordinary/impossible claim. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by Dennis's interpretation of WP:FALSEBALANCE that it's OK for us to state that press universally found the manufacturer's top speed claims ... wanting. I've removed the "weasel words" tag in the lede accordingly. – Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• And while the Nostradamus article makes clear that they are giving the opinions of outside source - the key words being "Most academic sources maintain that... " you are portraying an opinion as a fact by stating that the claim is extraordinary, rather than stating it was considered as extraordinary. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to suggest a sentence such as "Dodge's claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were disputed by experts (+ source) and have never been proven." then you might meet less opposition and it would still maintain the facts without going anywhere near implying the top speed claim was accurate or proven. This is starting to feel like WP:SNOW Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I looked for the official press release from Dodge and found various different versions all with different top speeds claimed. The quotes we had are "If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy." - which doesn't seem like the most sincere or reliable source and "Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach" this seems like a more reliable and accurate source - the guy designed the bike. So why are we still talking about 400mph claims? I guess that was the headline quote that was picked up on, and repeated everywhere and we are doing the same. When people talk about speed claims, I wanna see an official manufacturer's spec sheet, not "some guy on the dodge stand made a wild guess" or a random speed somewhere between 250 and 420mph depends on which source you go to. Without any reliability in our sources, we can't quote a claimed speed. So, I've removed the actual speed claimed from the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The Ack Attack streamliner has more than 1,000 hp, more than double the Tomahawk, and a much lower drag. It set a world land speed record for motorcycles, at 394.084 mph. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

For what seems like the hundredth time - no one here is claiming that the top speed of the Tomahawk is 400+ or even 300+ mph. No one wants the article to imply that or to leave readers second guessing if that claim is possible. I'm sorry if this sounds a little personal, but for someone who has been editing for over a decade, I would expect a little more understanding of what is the issue here. There are major wikipedia rules OR/NPOV/WEASEL/SNOW that you are either totally unaware of, totally ignoring, or totally misunderstanding.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's so then stop glossing over the very loud and clear statements from our sources that these claims are totally fanciful. Even plausible performance claims by manufacturers are normally treated with a grain of salt on all our other articles. When our sources tell us the claims are dubious, we have to tell the reader. You shouldn't expect understanding because you're simply wrong. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising and promotion, and we do not give equal weight to extraordinary claims that have not been accepted by independent sources. That's policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If claims are considered to be dubious, then put a quote. That is NPOV. I'm wondering what the Tomahawk did to upset you, I see less drama and POV pushing on articles about race, religion and abortion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

With the speed claim removed from the lead, it reads a bit like a teaser - I think either it should list what the claim was, or the whole line should be taken out so we're not leaving readers hanging about what sort of claim was being made. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't fathom justification for downplaying the hyperbolic speed claim. The Google News Archive lists a few dozen articles that all focus on a handful of facts: the hp, the top speed, 0 to 60, and the V-10. This has to be the meat of the article because it's the meat of our source material. And WP:LEDE requires that the article lead summarize the contents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to say what the initial claim was. From different sources (that all claim to have copies of the original press release) there are different speeds stated, all attributed to Dodge. The media has been commenting on different top speeds as well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Unfortunately it's hard to say what the initial claim was"?! Utterly false. Our sources report clearly that the claim was first 420k then 400, then 300+, all of which are nonsense. I don't get how anyone can flatly deny what we can all see when we check the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At what point was consensus gained to change to the draft version of this article?

The question is in the title. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned with discussing this, given interaction bans etc. I don't even want to know why it was changed, or who prompted what. For the sake of the current peace and freedom to edit that everyone is enjoying, it's probably best to leave this particular can of worms untouched. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2016

Dodge Tomahawk → ? –

• @Dennis Bratland and Spacecowboy420: At 14:58, 8 April 2016‎ Dennis Bratland copy-and-pasted Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version (a longer alternate version of Dodge Tomahawk) to name Dodge Tomahawk, with edit comment "restoring expanded version after violation of interaction ban", and then asked me to history-merge them, which is impossible due to WP:Parallel histories. I reverted the copy-and-paste move. The nearest that I can get to obeying his request would be to move Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/old version and Dodge Tomahawk each to the other's name (via a temporary third name); but past history compels discussion before I decide whether to make this pagename-swop. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Spacecowboy420 is banned from engaging in discussion of my edits. He needs to walk away and let other editors handle this. We have enough capable people around to make a good decision without him. He isn't indispensable.

  Nobody voiced any objections to the new version, except an editor who is banned from responding to my edits. He should have ben blocked for his posts on your talk page about me. He is supposed to be blocked immediately without warning if he posts about me, my edits, or responds to me anywhere on Wikipedia.

  Aside from editors who should not be houndng me, the new version is uncontroversial, and more to the point: it is obviously a much better, well-sourced article, citing dozens of experts in the subject. Per WP:PEACOCK, it replaces vague generalizations about the importance and impact of the subject with specific cited ratings, awards and expert commentary, as it says: "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". It quotes well-known publications and expert reviewers, and discusses points of disagreement, criticism, and praise in a balanced way. There are no obvious problems with the version created by User:Vintagent, User:Brianhe and me. It should be kept unless anyone has reasonable objections. The interference on your talk page should be ignored, and the expanded version belons in the article namespace now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)