Talk:Honda Pacific Coast

NPOV, citations, use of weasel and peacock words

The enthusiasm of the article is terrific -- still the article ignores these core principles of Wikipedia:

Article Lacks References: self explanatory

Article doesn't reflect an NPOV:

Example: The introduction mentions "unique styling" and "excellent handling." Who says the styling is unique? What constitutes unique styling? Couldn't it be said that all different motorcycles have their own, unique styling? What is "excellent" handling? Who determines excellence? For a bike that has been in use for so many years, is there not a single negative to report to offset the lack of citation, the peacock terms and weasel words?

Article uses weasel words:

Example: "The prevailing attitude at Honda was." How do we measure "prevailing attitude?" We have no citation or quotation... so how is that measured? What does it mean?

Example: "Often it is necessary for a PC800 owner to point out to the untrained eye that its large" What exactly is an "untrained eye?" What does the author mean by "it is necessary?" Who determines this necessity?

Example: "A seat height of 30.1 inches ensures rideability by all but the shortest riders, and its full, integrated fairing and windshield are moderately effective at shielding its rider from the elements." What is "rideability?" What does this mean: "moderately effective?"

Example: "the PC800 fleet seems to hold its value relatively well." What is "the PC800 fleet?" What does this mean: "relatively well."

Article uses peacock terms:

Example: "The sheer uniqueness of the Honda Pacific Coast has allowed it to achieve something of a cult status to a rare breed of non-traditional motorcycling enthusiasts." What is "sheer uniqueness?" What is this "cult status" the article mentions -- Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not propoganda.

Example: " Their quality, utility, tame road manners, and low maintenance continue to make them very attractive." Says who?
This isn't a neutral statement: it's highly positive, yet unreferenced and unverifiable. Attractive? To whom?

Again, great article: full of enthusiasm.

842U (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

email update from User Piusg

User Piusg wrote me today from wikipedia@gregorypius.com: "Until you go out and get yourself a Pacific Coast, LEAVE MY ARTICLE ALONE."

Wow... what does this mean? Is this an order, a threat?

842U (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.

Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information.

Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified.

Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.

842U (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Piusg weighs in on this article

When I wrote this article in 2006, I was not attempting to write a doctoral dissertation about the PC800. I own one, and I've owned it and three others just like it since 2000.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a whole lot of recent factual information regarding this motorcycle. It was never particularly popular among motorcyclists and its intended audience responded to its introduction in 1989 by buying Harley-Davidsons in droves (and that does come from one of the few online articles regarding the Pacific Coast: Minnesota Motorcycle Monthly's August 1998 article Road Test: Honda Pacific Coast PC800).

Inasmuch as I have been riding the subject of the article for a good eight years--and been a rider for about twenty--I believe that gives me sufficient credentials to write what I wrote. When I compare the PC800 to other motorcycles I own, and have owned, it's handling characteristics are remarkable. It is one of the most competent touring bikes I've ever ridden--and I've ridden lots of bikes. Doesn't that count for anything? Is the author of a Wikipedia article not allowed to have an opinion? Must he/she always tout the opinions of others? Anything written about the Pacific Coast in the trade journals would be nothing more than the opinions of someone else. So what, 842U, would you have me write?

In the opinions of the professional reviewers who write for the major cycle magazines who reviewed it back in the day, as well as my own opinions, the bike has superb handling. It is very unique. What other bike do you know of that has an integrated trunk that doesn't have to be bolted on as an aftermarket accessory?

The problem here is that material about the PC800 is sparse to begin with--which is one of the reasons I was motivated to write the article in the first place. Therefore, being the authority on the machine that I am, I wrote the article from that point of view. Sure, I could've simply stuck with the facts. Had I done that, the article would've simply said: The Pacific Coast is a motorcycle with two wheels, a trunk, and it covered in plastic. Period. A lot of what I hear is the product of talking to many, many motorcyclists and PC riders over the years. It's the product of attending rallies and talking to folks affiliated with Honda. When talking to Honda reps, I never ask them "Hey, man, can I have an official quote so I can cite you in Wikipedia?" When I started riding the PC800, Wikipedia didn't even exist.

842U, you are doing little more than pissing on my parade. And you're certainly not going to diminish my enthusiasm for my machine, nor my desire to share that enthusiasm with the Internet at large. What you are doing is frustrating me beyond words with crusade. If you dislike my article so much, how 'bout I just take it down and put it up on my own website? That way, I can write whatever the hell I want about it, and you can go pound sand. And Wikipedia will have one less contributor.

Oh, by the way, you can't blame me for the latest rash of tag removal. I don't do anything on Wikipedia without being logged in. Perhaps, 842U, you've managed to rouse the ire of the IPCRC--who routinely send new members to read my article--with your little self-appointed crusade to "clean up Wikipedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piusg (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

The point isn't to criticize editors of the article, the enthusiasm of the editors, or the affinity of the editors or -- in this case, the motorcycle itself -- rather to discuss how the article does or doesn't meet the criteria to be a Wikipedia article. The contributors to the article have done a great job in creating the article given the verifiable resources found thus far.

• Please refrain from using this discussion to make a personal attack.

• Please refrain from emailing this editor outside this discussion to make a personal attack.

• Understand that no one person "owns" an article on Wikipedia.

• It is not a criteria to edit an article on Wikipedia that one "get permission" from anyone.

• It is not a criteria to edit articles on Wikipedia that one own a Honda Pacific Coast PC800.

• Understand that Wikipedia is not an enthusiast's forum.

What do you think is the best way to bring the article into conformance with Wikipedia requirements?

Wikipedia requires a npov and avoidance of information that's not verifiable, weasel words and peacock terms.

• It may be that the article will get much shorter.

• It may be that there are sources of criticism of the bike that will be added.

• Succinct articles on other motorycle models might prove helpful in providing direction, e.g., Honda CB700SC.

• The tags will remain til the article reflects Wikipedia guidelines. The article may be locked to prevent editing by non-registered users, if the tags are gratuitously removed.

The editors who've contributed to the article have doubtless created the current article in good faith. It will be great to see the article evolve as it reflects Wikipedia guidelines -- your enthusiasm will go a long way in improving the article.

842U (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo of trunk

This article screams for a photo of the trunk -- possibly two (opened and closed). The person who provides the trunk could upload the photo and make sure that it meets Wikipedia criteria for ownership, etc.

Also. is there any way to visually compare the amount of bodywork the PC800 has to another contemporary touring bike? How can that be visually supported with a photograph?

Other tourers with massive sculpted plastic bodywork

BMW likes to heavily clad their bikes in plastic. Nothing epitomizes this like their reigning supertourer, the K1200LT, whose 4-cylinder inline engine just barely peeks out from a small "porthole" in the fairing.

The PC800's big brother, the Goldwing, also has extensive plastic bodywork--however, a fair amount of the bike's mechanicals poke out from underneath it. The PC800, by comparison, modestly reveals nothing. It's almost as if Honda didn't want people to think it was a motorcycle. Piusg (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Piusg

update

Piusg, are you suggesting the article could have more info about the cladding?

I trimmed your "affectionately referred to as Tupperware by some owners." A peacock term (affectionately) and two weasel words (some owners) in one sentance.

The point isn't to eliminate the "affection" from the article, rather to demonstrate the affection by having a complete, authoritative article free from bias.

What to say about the cladding: It's tough to pull off a comparison to another bike without introducing major subjectivity. How does the PC800 actually differ? Is the material of the cladding any different? Was the PC800 a leader in the transition to heavy body cladding and an integrated fairing? How so?

Because this is such a prominent aspect of the bike's distinction, how could the article better reflect this aspect of the PC800?

On another subject, Is the PC's engine a boxer like a BMW or a V config like the Goldwing, earlier Honda CX series and Moto Guzzi's?

The article doesn't address how the PC800 developed and how it was replaced. Is there a notable connection to the CX series before and the ST series later?

842U (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you...

I'm a PC800 owner and I affectionately refer to my bike's plastic bodywork as "Tupperware." So do quite a number of people on the IPCRC forum, by far the largest Internet group of its kind. And the simple fact that there is a "Body by Tupperware" decal available for purchase in the open market lends much credence to that statement. Does that count for nothing in a Wikipedia article? You have at least one owner who affectionately refers to his bike's cladding as Tupperware.

You seem to be forgetting this: That the owners of these bikes regard them with affection is also a fact. Why is it so terrible to indicate that people like these motorcycles? What kind of verification or citation will show that owners of these bikes have a genuine affection for them? Do we need to get quotes from each and every one of the IPCRC members stating "My name is so-and-so, and I really like my Pacific Coast and refer affectionately to the plastic it's wrapped in as Tupperware?"

You cannot simply scrub every trace of emotion out of an article about something people have strong feelings for. That too is unfair to the Wikipedia community, because you're not being true to the nature of the subject of the article.

A large part of the story behind the PC800 is missing--that it was a flop in the marketplace after it was introduced with a super-high price point and targeted towards Yuppies and new riders (several notable motorcycle magazines reported this) and how there was enough momentum from the tiny niche who really appreciated and enjoyed the unique bike that Honda felt confident enough to bring it back for a few years--only to have it fail again.

You have stripped out a very large and important part of the PC800 story and are doing a disservice to those asking the question "Wow, this is a neat machine--why don't I see them all over the place?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piusg (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "Piusg's Wikipedia"

The guidelines apply to all of us.

It's no one's job to educate you.

Either avoid peacock terms, weasel words, and your own anectdotal point of view -- or someone else will likely come along and avoid these for you.

Do your homework, verify your references, cite your sources.

That's how Wikipedia works.

Have fun.

PS When you are done commenting here, sign your post with four tilda's and avoid the embarrassment of having the "robot" come along and sign for you.

842U (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who in the hell do you think you are?

This tirade is addressed to the high handed turkey who thinks that he or she knows best what to put in this article.

Your tactics are abominable and your suggestions not much better than that.

Why don't you get out of our faces and keep your hands off this article?

You obviously have way too much time on your hands.

Go harass someone else... (I understand you are already doing that...)

Leland Sheppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.168.147 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't 842U's Wikipedia either...

Alright, I'm drawing the line.

You've already taken just about everything I've written out of the article that makes it uniquely mine. I draw the line at the top picture. That is my bike you replaced. Jesus Christ Almighty, enough is enough. This isn't 842U's wikipedia either.

You've already beaten every bit of me out of this article. I will not let you replace my picture. If you replace it again, I will put it right back up again. You wanna fight me on this issue? Go right ahead.

You will not remove my picture. That I will not have. Piusg (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cooler Heads?

Does Wiki have a procedure that makes it so no one, registered or not, can edit the article for X-amount of time?

I think the PC800 riders are getting hot-headed and 842U is getting slightly petty when he replaces a decent photo--seems spiteful. I think everyone needs a serious "time out"--though I think 842U means well and is basically "in the right" here according to Wiki guidelines.

Leland and Piusg mean well, and are avid and knowledgeable PC800 owners, but this is degenerating fast. Not all PC800 riders are like this, despite us all (yes, I own one too) having an "independent streak" a mile wide. ;)

I'd edit the article (I do technical documentation at work), but I don't have the time for daunting task of learning all the Wiki rules. This has just been a hot-button topic on the iPCRC forums and I felt the need to put my 2¢ worth in at least once here.

Kevin Quosig (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You meet the nicest people on a Honda

As a member of the Yahoo Group dedicated to the PC800, a motorcylist looking for a nice used PC800, and a Wikipedia enthusiast following both the discussion at the Yahoo Group and the discussion here, a few reminders:

no personal attacks

assume good faith

be civil

As Kevin (above post?)pointed out over on the Yahoo group, the guy that Piusg and Leland have attacked here has been calm and appropriate. The edits have been well grouneded, and the article is now more in line with a Wikipedia article vs. the view of a special interest group.

You might not like it, that's ok, but you need to stop being impolite and stop attacking the guy. And if you don't like the Wikipedia guidelines, that's not for us to decide.

If you don't like them, you can do what you want somewhere else. No Wikipedia article belongs to one person. When someone takes personal credit for the page, he's overlooking the basic premise of Wikipedia: it's open source, it belongs to no special interest group.

Thanks, Rick.

Rfbreeden (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo

Edited to remove admittedly inappropriate tone, correct accessory distinction. 842U (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

The question to ask might be "which photo describes the PC800 better?" vs. who contributed which photo.

Looking at the two photographs:

• Both show a bike with an accessory, red: backrest, white: tall windshield.
• The red bike shows unnecessary background info and the front wheel is turned away from the viewer.
• The photo of the white bike doesn't have the background info (easier for the unitiated to see the outline of the bike) and the front tire isn't turned away: the profile of the front wheel cowling, one of the bike's notable features, is fully and clearly discernable (compare the smaller "gray" hub in each photo.)
• The photo of the red bike has flash highlights that obscur the contours of the bike around the front turn signals and along the lower portion of the bike.
• The red bike, on it's side stand, is tilted away from the viewer -- the white bike, on its centerstand, shows a full, clear profile.
• The front wheel cowling has a vent straking that mimics the main engine vent and a lower engine vent on the body of the bike -- two of the three are not clearly discernable in the photo of the red bike.

File:PC-III.jpg

842U (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo (2)

[Can't see an obvious way to make this a sub-item, sorry...someone feel free to fix it.]

842U...you make a good point on the photo, and I agree. However, your need to repeat and bold the word "petty" is the kind of attitude that is not helping things. Correcting us is one thing, but coming off as snide is violating the spirit of Wiki as much as anyone else. It's easier to agree with criticism or teaching when it's polite, wouldn't you say? I see your point, just try to make it more politely, especially for those of us trying to be constructive in our dialog with you.

Kevin Quosig (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, point taken. Thanks. 842U (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The '89 in the photo is NOT stock

To the person who put the '89 photo in, you need to know what you are talking about and you obviously do not.

The windshield on the '89 in your photo is NOT standard. It is a Hondaline aftermarket accessory windshield.

As I said, you need to know what you are talking about...

You removed Gregory's photo because of a "non-standard accessory". So now you need to remove yours for the same reason.

Leland Sheppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.168.147 (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

to the person who is tearing this article down

If what you have done to the Pacific Coast article reflects what Wikipedia really wants, I'm sure you will see that they get it. You are plenty high handed about doing whatever you want with someone else's article.

However, what you have left is dull, dry and uninteresting.

While I didn't agree with everything Gregory wrote in his original article and voiced a couple of complaints to him, at least it was interesting. You have seen to it that that is no longer true.

I'm hereby withdrawing my financial support from Wikipedia. Your Gestapo tactics make the whole thing very unappealing to me.

Leland Sheppard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.168.147 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Thanks for the correction, Leland -- about the windshield. Duly noted.

Of the two available photos, the photo of the white bike seems to have advantages still.

And the difficulties you're having with the article and this process are understandable. The gestapo reference is regrettable -- but predictable: Godwin's law or Reductio ad Hitlerum.

The article isn't being "torn down," it's being restructured to reflect Wikipedia guidelines.

The enthusiasm you bring to the discussion, albeit perhaps unbridled, is great. The article isn't set in stone -- its important that we remain flexible, open-minded and respectful.

Giving up and withdrawing support is one alternative. Another workable direction for going foward might be to emphasize the distinction between a Wikipedia article and an enthusiast's article... and then build on that.

Again, thanks for the correction.

842U (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Still petty and arrogant

842U, you still come off as very smug, arrogant, petty, and superior--even when you're trying to pay a compliment. You pet with one hand and punch with the other. And I have to tell you: nobody likes a know-it-all.

We wouldn't have nearly the problem with your editing of the article if you would've taken a more conciliatory tone in the beginning when you first started editing. It doesn't make one whit of difference how right you are when you take the attitude "I'm right and you're all wrong, and I know more than you, so there." You've been poking us all in the eyes--even the people here who have stuck up for you--over this article for days now. This has truly become a tempest in a teacup.

Yes, replacing the picture of my bike was most definitely a petty, arrogant thing to do--and I don't buy for one second that you didn't know it was my bike at the top of the page. You replaced the picture out of sheer petty spitefulness, not to uphold your precious, vaunted Wikipedia standards. You are guilty of the same third-grade playground shenanigans that you accuse Leland and I of.

If being right is really so important to you that you're willing to piss people off, step on their toes, and make yourself out to be an arrogant know-it-all simply for the sake of righteousness, fine. I'm so done with this. I have real activities in my life that that are far more worthy of my attention than having a pissing contest with a frustrated academic with apparent self-esteem problems.

You don't need to reply to this. Whatever reply you could possibly give would only further cement your arrogance.

Piusg (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

“ You (842U) are guilty of the same third-grade playground shenanigans that you accuse Leland and I of. ”

Where exactly did 842U accuse you or Leland of anything? Get your facts straight.

This is a place to discuss the article and how to make it better. The article is supposed to be an un-biased reference article.

You try to shoot, stab and mutilate the messenger, while refusing the message: that this is a reference article and not one enthusiast's anecdotal viewpoint.

You argue that switching the photo is heavy-handed, smug, petty, and arrogant. That's your perception, fine. What you don't argue is which photo is better for a reference article.

You use this discussion to catalogue the personal injustice you've suffered -- while showing little understanding or respect for the rules of the road.

Good grief.

Enough already. Save the drama for your mama.

Packa (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo

File:97PC-left.JPG

Vareity is the spice of life. I wonder if 842U even owns a motorcycle? Sure does not sound like it....

Here's a link to a YouTube video so you can see who your are arguing with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTPRk9Kj9xU

Leland accusing another person of "Gestapo Tactics" is the kettle calling the pot black.

842U you have succeeded in reducing this article to a bland colorless POS that could have been written by some "Tax Termite" Govt. Bureaucrat. Is being completely anal your gift to the world?

PS That is a real picture of a PC800 on LSD

Wlaguy51 (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

colorless?

This is too funny. Complaining a reference article is "colorless" is like complaining that water is... er... wet.

Let me get my violin.

The article has more complete information that it ever had with more sources to verify that information. You can argue that the article is colorless, but it now actually has more real color than it ever had:

• Before, would someone coming to the article for the first time have learned anything specific about the one most distinguishing characteristic of the bike -- it's trunk? No, because there wasn't the first description of how the trunk works, how much it holds, how its locks, how its configured under the seat? That's colorful?

• Speaking of color, would a first time reader know the actual names Honda named the paints? Or that the gray lower color Karakorum was named after? It certainly wasn't in the article before. Why did Honda name a color after a Mongolian capital city? The colorfulness in the article isn't gone, it's just left for the reader to appreciate... rather than relying on mind-numbing drivel to induce the reader to "believe."

• Did anyone know that the Honda Research America designed the bike specifically for the American market? It wasn't in the article before. There is a reference for the claim in the article now. Piusg claims there were only two references available for the article, but there are over ten references now. Was Piusg wrong? Lazy? Do you want your encyclopedia articles written by someone besotten with the subject matter and too lazy to do any homework?

• Did a first time reader know that Christoffer Carstanjen was nicknamed Captain Tupperware? No, because it wasn't in the article. Piusg pleads to include the phrase "affectionately called Tupperware" in the article because he, one person, calls his bike's bodywork Tupperware. How is "affectionately called Tupperware" more colorful than having a PC800 rider called "Captain Tupperware?"

• Should a first time reader come to article to see a photo overloaded with flash highlights because some person out there has gotten their feelings hurt -- that's color?

No, what people were asked to believe in the old version of the article was about "lackluster sales" without anything to back it up, "surging interest in the unique motorcycle" without mentioning what makes it unique... other than, in the fashion of a circular arguement, the bikes "sheer uniqueness."

Crappy sentances like this littered the article: "The prevailing attitude at Honda was to entice would-be riders into the showroom who would not otherwise entertain the thought of owning a motorcycle." Without backup, it's a meaningless statement -- but its colorful? The first time reader is just asked to accept it on face value... and "believe."

There's a big difference between "colorful writing" and good writing. And the very people who claim to care so much about the PC800 don't care to do an adequate job creating a bona fide reference article about. They'd rather complain, attack and vilify.

People in general seem to complain that Wikipedia is inaccurate, but when someone tries to make it accurate (or at least something they can veriify on their own), others complain because their "precious colorfulness" is gone.

The article isn't for people who already know about the bike -- delirious with affection. It's for the uninitated -- and it's not meant to mislead, cajol and seduce.

May it rest in peace, the old article, which refered to the PC800's "cult status." Clearly, at least two followers of the bike resemble members of a cult.

Here's my advice. Don't drink their the Kool-aid.

BMWR1200C (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

No offence intended: it would be nice if the article had a warmer feel, but not at the expense of accuracy. I'm all for color, but older versions of the article short-changed the PC800's overall production of the bike by almost 30%... in its opening sentance (according to the serial number information.)

Why would Honda have named one of the paint colors after a Mongolian capital city? Rfbreeden (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Wow. Hey, c'mon, guys. This has gotten way out of control. I figured I'd push the "reset" button on the conversation to date (it's not gone, it's still in the history)

Piusg, Thanks for originally contributing the article, but you really need to put aside your ego and let those with a stronger grasp of Wikipedia's ideals do their thing. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a reference work. I went back and looked at the original article and the writing looked like it would be at home in a magazine, if for no other reason that nothing was cited, and rule numero uno of Wikipedia has to be to cite your material.

People who knock Wikipedia do so for exactly the reason the article needed to be revised: people just post any old thing without citing their sources. And even though you've been riding your PC800 forever, you can't cite yourself, as much as you'd like to.

A passionate Wikipedia article about how much we dig our our PC800s would destroy the neutral point-of-view that Wikipedia strives so hard to achieve. But passion and NPOV tend to be, unfortunately, mutually exclusive. Now, if you know of a published article demonstrating how much passion we Coasties have for our bikes, great--just cite it.

Anyway, everyone should just cool off for a little bit before posting again. The article looks good. I'd be proud to refer people to it for more information about the PC800.

PacificCoastie (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving a discussion

The discussion can be "archived." There are pro's and con's to the various methods. See Help:Archiving a talk page. 842U (talk)

I originally called on the PC800 community...

BMWR1200C, when I originally wrote the article back in 2006, I invited the iPCRC to help me out with it. I got a few pointers to put in the article, but nobody wanted to actually modify the article but me.

Back in January, after I revisited it and was shocked to see all the profound changes to it, again called on the iPCRC community for help. Again I got a few tips here and there, and this time, a few people responded by editing the article. Whether or not 842U allowed those changes to stand is debatable--I haven't had the time to sift through the entire history of this now-turbulent article. I would much rather have seen an effort by the PC800 community to clean it up and make it a "Wikiworthy" rather than a single editor trying to uphold Wikipedia's standards. But what is, is.

It's not like I crowned myself king of all knowledge that is PC800. All I did was write an article and asked the larget PC800 community out there for help with it.

I'm to the point where I've given up. I don't have the time to sit and watch the article every day like 842U does, and I'm unwilling to get into an ego-bashing contest with anybody. I'm sick of reading how "embarrassed" some members of the PC800 community are by my efforts to maintain this article. If they had any interest at all in it, they would've helped me edit it when I Called for help two years ago rather than be embarrassed now.

I'm done. Do with the article what you will.

Piusg (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Solutions??

Perhaps some of the "affectionate terms and opinions" of the original article could be contained in a sub-section called "Testimonials" Beacuse some people who have never heard of this bike are seaching for what present owners think about the bike pro and con.

Well at least The BMW guy owns a motorcycle. But I wonder how he would like 1,200 kool-aid drinking PC800 riders scurtinizing BMW Wikipedia articles for every imperfection? I thought so. I am not suggesting that. I have put over 100,000 miles on a R75/7 made the 100K part discount club. I sold because I moved didn't have covered parking and too many parking tickets. A couple of years later I am just browsing Ebay stumble upon a PC800. I didn't even know what is was. I never heard of it. My first reaction was What is This!! I got to have one. On my 5th now A 97 that has been bullit proof with 36K miles; 50 mpg; $2,650.00. A BMWR1200C has got to be what??? $15-$17K. A lot of dough left over to buy more kool-aid. Wlaguy51 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a 100,000-mile parts discount club?

There's a 100,000-mile parts discount club for Beemers? I myself also own a K1200LT that I put over 100,000 miles on. Post a link! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piusg (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Testimonials? Too funny!

There is a story that the word "testify" and hence "testimonial" comes from a man in the Roman Court having to hold his testicles while he "gives his word." I don't know if its true, but Wikipedia should require that!

In the end, I don't think it would work to have testimonials in a reference article. That's precisely the kind of thing you see listed under movie reviews or advertisements for those things you put inside your air intake to "increase" gas mileage... Test-o-monials. Is anyone actually going to write a negative test-o-monial?

I just read back over what Piusg called his "call for help," the one he links to in his last entry. It's too funny: he admits he was taking the whole thing personally, doesn't know what weasel words are (which is about like saying, I have no idea what I'm doing here)and then procedes to hash into 842U. His call for help reads like a "call for pitchforks." Piusg calls him a "do-gooder" and a "crusader," accuses him of "taking down the logo" (which it looks like someone else did), and describes his behavior as "bordering on harassment."

Piusg then writes (up above in this discussion) addressing 842U and tries to make it look like 842U "aroused the ire" of the Yahoo group... but Pisug had already done his best to arouse the ire of the Yahoo group against 842U. Boo-ma-rang.

Obviously Pisug wasn't holding his testicles when he said any of this.

Maybe its because people can be so easily mislead that Wikipedia has... er... guidelines. I wonder how many of the members of the Yahoo group fell for it. All the whining, all the dissertation stuff. I don't think we should archive this discussion though, based on its "sheer uniqueness."

Wlaguy51, how do you "know" I own a motorcycle? Maybe that's just what I want you to think? I do ride a motorcycle (I'm not mentioning what kind though -- too many pitchforks in this crowd) and -- get this -- I also like a Wikipedia article that stands on its own... ie, without the help of the Kool-aid inducement.

[Image:Bmw cruiser r1200c custom leftside.jpg|thumb] 70.165.67.131 ==== Testimonials? Too funny! ====

There is a story that the word "testify" and hence "testimonial" comes from a man in the Roman Court having to hold his testicles while he "gives his word." I don't know if its true, but Wikipedia should require that!

In the end, I don't think it would work to have testimonials in a reference article. That's precisely the kind of thing you see listed under movie reviews or advertisements for those things you put inside your air intake to "increase" gas mileage... Test-o-monials. Is anyone actually going to write a negative test-o-monial?

I just read back over what Piusg called his "call for help," the one he links to in his last entry. It's too funny: he admits he was taking the whole thing personally, doesn't know what weasel words are (which is about like saying, I have no idea what I'm doing here)and then procedes to hash into 842U. His call for help reads like a "call for pitchforks." Piusg calls him a "do-gooder" and a "crusader," accuses him of "taking down the logo" (which it looks like someone else did), and describes his behavior as "bordering on harassment."

Piusg then writes (up above in this discussion) addressing 842U and tries to make it look like 842U "aroused the ire" of the Yahoo group... but Pisug had already done his best to arouse the ire of the Yahoo group against 842U. Boo-ma-rang.

Obviously Pisug wasn't holding his testicles when he said any of this.

Maybe its because people can be so easily mislead that Wikipedia has... er... guidelines. I wonder how many of the members of the Yahoo group fell for it. All the whining, all the dissertation stuff. I don't think we should archive this discussion though, based on its "sheer uniqueness."

Wlaguy51, how do you "know" I own a motorcycle? Maybe that's just what I want you to think? I do ride a motorcycle (I'm not mentioning what kind though -- too many pitchforks in this crowd) and -- get this -- I also like a Wikipedia article that stands on its own... ie, without the help of the Kool-aid inducement.

[Image:Bmw cruiser r1200c custom leftside.jpg|thumb] BMWR1200C (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)