Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/Archive 3

Museum collections
These are so rare that they probably merit inclusion as individual serial-numbered vehicles in a collection under Category:Collections of museums in the United States. I don't think this has been done yet with individual motorcycles, but there are several others especially in the world record holders category, Category:Land speed record motorcycles. – Brianhe (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * told me he hasn't found any information on any Tomahawks trading hands or appearing anywhere, which is consistent with the lack of hits in any search. I have no idea if the original is in the Chrysler Museum and the other 9 are in private hands, or if the one there is one of the 9, with 8 unaccounted for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Another abandoned application of Viper motor
The Dodge Sidewinder, a V-10 powered pickup concept, is mentioned on p. 86 of the 2014 Motorbooks title Dodge 100 Years. Brianhe (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is one of the vehicles that made critics say the Tomahawk came about because they'd run out of odd places to stick the Viper engine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the story of the engine looking for a home would be an interesting addition to the article. By the way I don't know how they solved the inherent vibration in a V-10 (vs a V-12 which has perfect primary and secondary balance). Is there a balancer shaft, and would it have worked decently on a motorcycle application? I'm currently riding on an inline-4 with a balancer and it has some engineering tradeoffs as well. – Brianhe.public (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have any references to a balance shaft. I think Cycle World or Motorcyclist mentioned the vibration, and the noise, is tremendous, but they said that's part of the appeal because it's supposed to be wild like a chopper. There are two or three YouTube videos, I'm not sure the original source or copyright status, that show the Tomahawk riding at very low speed, maybe 30 mph, and never corning. I've never found any still photos of it leaning even a little, or turning, only going straight. So even though the vibration could cause instability at high speed or cornering, I don't think it ever comes to that because it has never even come close to the 100 mph that Bernhard said it might have reached -- I think the stability problems happen much sooner. Motorcyclist says they only spend 6 months designing and building this, and that's far too little time to correctly engineer a totally new, patented four-wheel hub-center-steering suspension. It could be the inability to turn around without being raised by a forklift could be one reason these don't tour and get shown to the public much. They say it can lean at up to 45° but I don't think it can. So I think they'd have had to solve many other problems before the engine vibration became an impediment. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Viper never used a balancer shaft. It's an odd firing motor which helps with smoothness. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Video of Tomahawk in motion
from Discovery HD Theater. It's mostly going in a straight line but appears to be going through a banked turn at one point. Brianhe (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one that I had seen. Relying on the bank is what made me question its ability to lean at the claimed 45°. If you look at videos and images of tilting 3-wheelers you see all kinds of attention paid to the tilting mechanism in action -- it's fascinating, and draws a lot of interest. Its seems implausible that they wouldn't have shown off what the Tomahawk could do, if it were functional. I probably shouldn't have brought it up, since we don't have much to say. Cycle World and Motorcyclist express hints of skepticism that the suspension and steering actually work, but that's as far as it goes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

was 420mph ever claimed?
I started looked at the sources a little more closely and found the reference to 420mph. "this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio without factoring in aero drag works out to 420mph" so all of the comments regarding 420mph and the bike not having fairing etc etc seems to be pretty redundant. As per that source, Dodge already stated that 420mph was based purely on gearing and power and that they were aware drag would be a factor in the actual top speed being lower.

It really seems as if the media jumped all over one number given by one man, without reporting it fully and in context. All sources whining that the bike doesn't have the aero to hit 420mph are irrelevant as Dodge made that clear when giving the 420mph number. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other sources besides that one, for example Motorcycle Consumer News said the press sheet listed both 300 and 420 on the same page, no mention of the drag disclaimer. We have other sources that quote Walters: "If it were geared properly, 250 mph would be attainable," Walters says. "But right now, it's geared for acceleration, not speed." So maybe some of the time Dodge claimed it was "geared for 420" but the one guy who seems to be truthful, Walters, says no it wasn't, it wasn't even geared high enough to reach 250.It's probably true that Dodge did sometimes use some kind of "not counting drag" disclaimer, but they also sometimes threw 420 out there with no qualifications. Sometimes other numbers, like 300.Dodge and the other DaimlerChrysler spinners didn't care if they were lying or telling the truth -- classical bullshit. To them it was all just hand waving. We have some sources who didn't care either, and other sources who chose to treat a supposedly reputable corporation as meaning what the say and debunking their claims. I've already pointed out that some weak source were truly duped and perpetuated the myth. There's cheesy websites all over that keep it alive. WP:UNDUE still dictates that we cover this issue. There's no policy reason why we have to censor out any of the known facts about how and why 420 (and 300) are impossible.I think the burden is on you to cite any sources who criticized Cycle World, Motorcyclist, Motorcycle Consumer News, Car and Driver, or Popular Science for their skepticism. Your opinions that it "didn't matter", or that "nobody cared" or that it was "whining" or that dodge never made the claim are all original research. You're taking consistent, well founded, facts with strong professional consensus and fabricating your own made up argument against them, violating WP:YESPOV. You need sources for that, not your novel theories. We should write an article that communicates what's in the sources, and leave out your personal opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think it's ok to ignore the parts of your sources, when they don't give the facts you want to put on the article... Personally, the 420mph reference with the fact that aero had to be considered was highly relevant. But, you are more concerned with shouting "Dodge, liar liar pants on fire" than anything else at this point. Sorry, it's pretty difficult to assume good faith about any of your edits or comments right now. Just put the draft on here when you think it's perfect, and I shall give an unbiased opinion and let wikipedia procedures deal with getting consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouting? Incorrect. Another false accusation. I'm the one who researched and wrote a significant amount of content that explained that the Tomahawk was an important and successful exercise in public relations and branding, and was respected and admired by many of Dodge's corporate peers, while you've done little more than delete well-cited content and fill talk pages with hundreds and hundreds of words of pure, unsourced opinion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the entire Cycle World paragraph on top speed claims:


 * "At the unveiling, DaimlerChrysler dignitaries resembled high school juniors in Mrs. Grinder's fourth-period study hall, conjuring all manner of performance possibilities. Zero to 50 mph n 2.5 seconds, they eagerly reckoned-1.4 seconds quicker than the Viper. Top speed? Well, here the speculation ran amok. "This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring in aero drag, works out to 420 mph," theorized one Chrysler rep. Offered another, "If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy."

It seems pretty clear that top speed was not an official figure, at least at the time of the Detroit show. when company execs are casually speculating to reporters. Combine that with lead designer Walters openly stating that he thought, with adjustments, the bike could do 250 mph, and there is really no evidence that Dodge made any serious hard claim about top speed. Therefore, to cover at length a handful of journalists guessing about why this non-claim claim isn't possible, misrepresents the situation.

To cover this in more depth, we should be emphasizing the casualness of the claim - "Dodge execs speculated... 400, 420, 300, 250" - along with the fact that the bike was intended for display only, not road-tested, and not driven over 35 or 100 mph or whatever we have from sources. This would seem like the proper framing, and makes the speed situation abundantly clear, '''and this is accomplished with Spacecowboy420's draft from the previous Talk thread:

"COO Wolfgang Bernhard said in 2003 that no one had ridden the Tomahawk faster than 100 mph (160 km/h). Speculation about the Tomahawk's top speed came from the media, and within DaimlerChrysler. One Dodge representative said, 'If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy, while another stated 'this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio works out to 420mph' 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."

I agree with this editorial approach, and it satisfies policy at WP:BALASPS. --Tsavage (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not an official figure"? What exactly do you mean by "official"? Company officers said it, and they published it. Zero sources call it "unofficial" or any other "just kidding" qualifier. Multiple sources explicitly say the company was guilty of "spin", "hype", and other media-manipulation/bullshit. Some sources think that wasn't such a bad thing, others find it obnoxious. We give both plenty of room at the bottom of the article to say their piece. Please stop making up novel arguments and unpublished hypotheses in order to downplay sources that don't approve of the company's behavior.If you have any sources that contradict the speed debunkers, cite them. All this armchair speculation (Pulling a rabbit out of a hat) is original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it all depends on our intentions as editors. I'm not 100% familiar with all the wikipedia rules regarding content etc, I'm just approaching this with common sense and the desire to make something suitable for an encyclopedia.


 * The "If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy" claim was clear speculation and not an official Dodge statement. For the purposes of making a tabloid style publication, it's an interesting quote for the sensationalism factor, but for the purposes of informing readers of relevant facts, it's pretty useless, unless you really feel a need to inform readers that some unnamed person, made a silly claim.


 * The "This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring in aero drag, works out to 420 mph," is much more relevant. It's a calculated figure and accepts the aero factor in top speeds. It informs readers.


 * "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" is even better. It has a name for the source. It notes that top speed was not a design priority, but gives a possible top speed, and the fact that gearing would need to be changed.


 * I'm sure it is possible to find sources to support various different claims and statements regarding top speed claims on this bike and I'm sure you can include them just to prove a point. It won't help the article at all, all it will do is make a biased article that is focused on some ambiguous speed claims.


 * It is also possible to find sources stating 420mph as an actually serious and legit top speed claim, and possible to find sources that don't debunk the top speed claims. If I include a source stating the bike will hit 300mph/400mph/420mph can that be included? With the ambiguous and varied nature of the top speed claims, and the fact that these claims have not been proven nor have they been disproven, all the sources that take the 300/400/420mph speed claims as accurate, are just as valid sources as those that doubt those claims. If you just think that because a source exists, we can included it, we can end up with a 40 paragraph section just on sources that accept and deny the various speed claims. Of course, I wouldn't do that, because it wouldn't benefit the article - but it just goes to show how you can totally destroy an article by including every dumb source that supports a certain POV.


 * I think it all comes down to why you are editing this article. If you're here to push a certain POV, or to prove a point and "win" an edit war - then it makes sense to include every source you can to support your claims. If you're here to make a balanced and neutral article for people to read, then understanding that just because a source exists, doesn't mean it will help the article, is a good thing to consider. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here are some copies of a press release: (short version), longer version with full specs:  (html errors)  (looks complete). Note the dual claims "The 500-horsepower Viper V-10 engine powering the dual rear wheels gives this radical vehicle a potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour - for anyone who wants to test it." AND "Top Speed: 300+ mph (est.)" just as Glynn Kerr pointed out. There's nothing here indicating Dodge considered these speeds to be "unofficial" or "just kidding". "Potential" does not mean, "any silly number we want make up and you can't call us liars". It's false to say "the media jumped all over one number given by one man, without reporting it fully and in context." It's false to say Dodge was claiming this was only drive ratio without drag; they made no such disclaimer in their official press release. The assertion that Dodge was making clear that they didn't really mean it is a fabrication, original research.Instead we have our sources: Dodge asserted 300+ and they asserted a "potential"  of up to 400 mph. they also said "It is both a sculpture that can be ridden, as well as a bold statement about the Chrysler Group's enthusiast culture and passion for design" which doesn't clarify much. They said it can be ridden. They said the top speeds of 300-400 were possible. Other sources got the number 420 mph, also from Dodge.And we have source after source after source that took their words at face value and provided a realistic analysis. There is zero reason why any of that should be censored from the article, other than reasons invented by Wikipedia editors having no basis in our sources. This should be a very easy article to write: just tell the reader what is in our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is video at Motor Trend of Wolfgang Bernhard actually presenting the Tomahawk at the 2003 show in his Johnny Strabler getup. Note he says "lets talk about the real thing performance: 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds! [laughter] …it theoretically it tops out at 300 mph [laughter]". No "unofficial" qualifiers. No "just kidding". Just "theoretical". Again, nothing here to suggest it's out of bounds for Wikipedia to cite the numerous sources that proved this "theoretical 300+ mph" was far, far beyond the bounds of credibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And into the laughter, he says, "OK, we haven't done that yet, but, we'll do that, sometime." [more laughter] Hardly a serious claim from a guy promoting a bike that is supposed to actually go fast, as you would have it. How it looks and sounds, and that he actually rode it onto the stage (that must've been at least 3 mph), is obviously the main focus, which is what everyone else here has been saying. --Tsavage (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's some grasping at straws right there. "Wikipedia should erase all mention of this because the crowd in this video laughed." This double standard, subjecting this speed issue to such intense skepticism, while credulously accepting everything else Dodge claimed without looking twice, is tendentious editing. It would have helped your invented idea of this being "not serious" or "unofficial" if even once, anyone from Dodge had replied to the chorus of debunking by actually saying, ever, "we were not serious. It's unofficial". They never said any such thing. You guys put those words in their mouth. You guys made that up.We should simply convey what's in the sources and not try to play Devil's Advocate for what you think Dodge intended. We can't read their minds but we know what they said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one to read this whole talk page. Because back in 2011 dennis wrote this. The idea that the Dodge Tomahawk could to over 400 mph is patently absurd, as explained in Popular Science. Unreliable sites, mostly anonymous blogs laden with ads, like http://www.exoticcars.ws/dodge-tomahawk/, or WP:USERGENERATED sites like http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Top_speed_of_dodge_tomahawk are incorrect when they say that Dodge claimed the Tomahawk could go 400 or 420 mph. Dodge first announced a speed of 420 mph, then later revised that down to a much lower, but equally laughable, 300 mph. In reality, the Tomahawk has not been verified to be mobile at all. Dodge admits the Tomahawk is a sculpture, not a vehicle. There is no evidence you could ride it through a parking lot at 5 mph. Dodge shipped them in an unrideble condition, allowed nobody to test them, and did not make good on their promise to bring a Tomahawk to Bonneville for a speed trial.
 * In 2006 and 2009 they repeated the claim "potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour". They never tried to walk that back. Why would they do that if it is "hardly a serious claim"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add any more misleading information to this article. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and only cite reliable, verifiable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC) But now he has a view that is 180 to what he has stated in the past. As if all these performance numbers are all legit and were to be taken seriously? Like this was a actual vehicle meant to be ridden! Note I state vehicle and not a motorcycle this is not a motorcycle at best it was stated it was motorcycle like. By definition a motorcycle is a vehicle with only two wheels. You hint strongly in that draft as to this being a motorcycle. Also why does he keep stating that 3 people worked on the draft? It was mostly him with one other adding a small amount and the third he claims the guy who is a author just did two little things to the draft. One was to remove duplication and the other was to remove what might be construed as controversial so he did not add anything only took away. But I feel he includes him to just add weight to his argument clearly. And if you really want to add him to it why would you not listen to him. You have that huge draft page written up with nothing but duplicate and controversial information. Truly what sense does that make? Why would you spend all that time and effort on making a page for a 13 year old promotional stunt to just show case a motor? Is there really that much interest in this subject matter? Or is this just from you being challenged on what you can or cannot add to page? And now somehow feel threatened of your self worth or your "power"! I really feel you need to step back from this and take a good hard look at all sides and within. 72bikers (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

big difference between potential top speed and actual top speed. I am a potential F1 champion, world leader and rock god. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that the top speed figures listed for this concept vehicle are completely untested and their provenance seems to be almost entirely hypothetical, and strictly speaking, entirely implausible - and therefore it probably wouldn't be a terrible thing to allow some space for a summary of the opinions of experts looking into these claims to explain how they're impossible for the exact iteration of this concept vehicle. Less strictly speaking, I'm sure those figures become somewhat more within reach with relatively cosmetic modifications to this basic Tomahawk platform, like specialized high speed fairings etc., that greatly alter that HP-gear ratio-drag formula the critics are talking about.  It seems unfair to criticize the company too harshly for this hypothetical figure that pretty clearly was pulled out of someone's butt and carelessly reproduced by several writers (albeit ones who Dodge certainly didn't go to great lengths to correct, because why would they?), though again, that doesn't mean that we can't address this misinformation with the preface that these claims probably didn't come directly from Dodge.  The press releases posted above don't clearly indicate (IMO) that all of the information they contain came directly from the company.
 * Additionally, having only casually followed the development of the Tomahawk, I can't say I've noticed that this top speed issue has been heavily covered, and information about it should probably be confined to a paragraph or two for proper weight - it really seems to be all that should be necessary to cover this topic adequately and in an encyclopedic fashion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the top speed should be covered in this article. The factors limiting the top speed and what would make a higher top speed (aero/gearing/etc) are relevant. I'm not a big fan of the quote regarding the bike having 50% more drag than other bikes, unless there are accurate figures regarding the drag coefficient of the Tomahawk, then that quote is pretty useless.
 * There is no need for the ten or so paragraphs that are currently proposed by one or two editors. That would just be silly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * is this press release not from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles? And the two others that repeated the claim in 2006 and 2009? We have video of the COO saying the words, and multiple press releases saying it, and multiple independent sources saying they said it. Nobody disputes they said it, except for a couple Wikipedia editors. We cannot say "that these claims probably didn't come directly from Dodge" because we have no sources for that disclaimer, and multiple sources that they did come from Dodge (or DaimlerChrysler) and now they come -- to this day -- directly from Fiat Chrysler. Even the Tomahawk's most ardent admirers have never advanced this novel theory that Chrysler didn't assert an absurd speed. The whole argument used to minimize the top speed debunking, and limit our coverage of it, is based on original research and armchair speculation. Chrysler isn't embarrassed by the top speed claims, and hasn't denied a thing. They remind everyone of the "potential top speed of nearly 400 miles per hour" thing every few years. It's only their self-appointed defenders who want to suppress coverage of the topic, taking undisputed facts and recasting them as controversial opinions, in violation of WP:YESPOV. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The press releases don't change the core issue, which is that you want to seriously overemphasize and refute the top speed claim, to the point where it misrepresents the subject to the reader. In Dec 2011, you added an entire section, "Top speed," the only section in the article, to debunk the speed claim, and this is how the article stood for four years. What really concerns and bothers me as a Wikipedia user is that that version would have left me with the impression that the main story behind the Tomahawk is that Dodge promoted an extremely poorly designed performance bike that couldn't achieve the speed it promised, which entirely misrepresents the real situation. This misrepresentation is what is being corrected.


 * The top speed claim and how untested and unlikely it is is already covered in the article, and the article could use expansion that would present the design thinking and process in more detail, which would make it even clearer that this was intended as an attention grabber for a car company that didn't even sell motorcycles, and was in no way designed as a serious performance bike. That's the balanced story from the numerous sources. --Tsavage (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean the COO's comments at the unveiling? I think it's not good to use those statements for the same reason we shouldn't say Obama admitted that aliens control his actions based on this video.  You'll have to forgive the COO's deadpan delivery...the Germans aren't known for their mastery of humor.  I think it's meant to hyperbolic to highlight the ridiculousness of the concept of this 500hp V10 motorcycle.
 * That press release says "300+ mph (est.)", yes? Certainly implausible in "stock" configuration (whatever "stock" means for a concept vehicle), but I don't think there's any reason to suspect that's too far out of reach with some modifications....is a Tomahawk with specialized fairings, high gears, and some other specialized high-speed modifications still a "Tomahawk"?  This is of course mostly unfounded OR on my part, but I'm hoping to bring a bit of a different perspective.  In any case, to get a better idea of what you're proposing, do you believe Draft:Dodge Tomahawk represents an ideal version of how much weight should be given to this topic?  To be more explicit, how many paragraphs or what percentage of the article (or whatever other measure you care to use) should be devoted to this topic, in your opinion?  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You addressed the question to Dennis but I'm going to go ahead and answer as one of the contributors to the draft. I think no article is "ideal" but we can compare Draft:Dodge Tomahawk against the current incarnation of the article. This article has been going through intense churn since mid-December which hasn't improved it. The draft is far superior in its depth and quality of analysis. It goes into much richer detail about the vehicle's inception and its place in Dodge's history and has a plethora of sources, including very recent printed retrospectives, explaining its cultural relevance. This is, IMHO missing in many of the motorcycling articles and what makes a good Wikipedia article rather than a mere directory entry. I'll repeat what I said before: 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. The best way to test this idea has been proposed: put the draft up as the article and put it through a good article review for input from folks who have broad experience with what makes up good encyclopedic content. – Brianhe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft still has far too much content related to top speed and top speed claims. Dividing the content between top speed/dodge's changing claims/aerodynamic considerations/test does not reduce the amount of content.
 * The critical reception section is equally guilty of having too much content. The first sentence is awful While the majority of motorcycling, automotive, and science press coverage is littered with jokes and sarcasm roasting the Tomahawk, such as AutoWeek suggesting anyone riding the Tomahawk was a Darwin Award contender is it really hard to say some elements of the press criticized the tomahawk ? the leading sentence of that section seems more suitable for a tabloid publication than an encyclopedia.
 * Also the Detroit show section belongs in a different article, it seems as if irrelevant content was added to the article, in an attempt to justify the overly large sections on top speed/claims/criticism. Instead of trying to balance biased BS, with irrelevant BS - how about just having neither. Give the top speed claims the 2 or 3 sentences it deserves and you might have a decent draft. As it stands, the main article is much better than the draft. 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)
 * Spacecowboy420 just repeating "I don't like it" isn't making any headway. You don't like the section on the auto show; I think it is crucial, perhaps the most important part of the article. Neither those who favor the draft version, nor those who disfavor it, seem likely to change their positions. What say you to my proposal to launch a GA review so new eyes can look at this and give advice? – Brianhe.public (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't required. I've looked at the draft, and there are a few nice parts to it.
 * So, I took those parts and put them in the main article, a few minutes ago. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think, truly without trying to be sarcastic, that it is worth pointing out that Wikipedia is an excellent crowdsourcing platform and this article could really benefit from the attention of other editors. It looks like you incorporated all of three sentences from the draft, none of which touch on the auto show, which doesn't really seem to meet the spirit of what I was saying. Is this your way of saying you don't support a GA review? – Brianhe.public (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't, I don't think the autoshow is relevant to the article.
 * I'm not sure what effect you are expecting from new editors. This article has attracted a lot of new editors over the last month, look at the amount of opinions on the talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe: There are at least half a dozen editors not previously associated with this article who in the last month have commented at length on this top speed balanced coverage issue, and all of these opinions are remarkably uniform in finding that the speed claim should not be misrepresented by overemphasis. Please consider:
 * The varying speed claims were clearly promotional hyperbole and not a serious marketing effort to promote the Tomahawk as a fast bike, indicated by comments and quotes in multiple sources.
 * The "debunking" from motorcycle journalists, who did not test the bike, is anecdotal, no different than the speculation of anyone else with motorcycle experience.
 * The amount of coverage devoted to the speed claims, measured in the major sources, averages about 15%, and speed is not mentioned until well into the articles.
 * The Tomahawk is primarily an embodied concept, a (hastily-engineered) fantasy bike made out of a performance car engine five times bigger than the biggest normal production bikes, and was not intended for normal riding, let alone to be used to break speed records - this is abundantly clear in multiple sources, and is the main story.

The long-standing version of the article from early Dec 2015 misrepresented the Tomahawk, by devoting 70% of the article to criticizing the speed claim. Editors have corrected the balance and begun to expand the article.

Draft:Dodge Tomahawk reintroduces the imbalance by spreading speed claim coverage through a large amount of additional material, much of which appears either overemphasized or redundant or not relevant. There is nothing demonstrably wrong with the current version. New material should therefore be introduced incrementally, and not in a disruptive wholesale manner, allowing editors to verify and comment. --Tsavage (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep bringing up the old version? Nobody is proposing going back to that version. We'd like to move forward. The draft offers you a long list of concessions to meet your objections, yet still you refuse to give an inch. It's pretty clear that Tsavage, Spacecowboy420 and team have decided to stonewall instead of meeting anyone halfway, so it's time to take this to a new venue for resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis, we have gone through numerous resolution steps already. These steps have not supported the content you wish to be included here. It's getting rather tedious, could you please be the bigger man and just accept that your fellow editors do not agree with your content and back down? We could all be using our time in a far more constructive manner, contributing to articles that deserve our time, rather than repeating the same statements over and over again. There are some really badly written bike articles out there, that deserve our time far much more than this one. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis Bratland: A clear statement of the issue, in-depth discussion, and policy-based agreement (WP:BALASPS) among a strong majority of a fair number of editors is about as good as it gets as far as dispute resolution. I'm not part of a team, I don't communicate with any of the editors who've commented, except if I've done so on this page, I've only even seen just one of the editors' names before.


 * I mentioned the old version to Brianhe to make clear the underlying situation, as he has apparently joined you in pushing for a particular POV in editing the article - that version demonstrates what you see as proper balance for the speed claim, against all good argument. The issue is with biased speed claim coverage, and that version shows how it exists.


 * This isn't a battle for control of the article as you seem to suggest, editors can't (at least, shouldn't) agree on "concessions" in order to allow bad content. Stonewalling doesn't apply, because there's nothing pending. If you're referring to entirely replacing the current article with your draft, that's already been addressed. And my normal incremental editing here is ongoing. --Tsavage (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SNOW WP:DEADHORSE both seem quite relevant today. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again you're misleadingly declaring victory simply because the editors who object to your destructive removal of large amounts of well-cited content have agreed to cease edit warring with you, since you have made clear that you intend to slam that revert button every chance you can get away with. The current article is not stable, and it lacks consensus. It's a terrible whitewash, a promotional bit of advertising that reads like a barely-glossed over press release. The only dead horse is your repeated arguments that amount to nothing but "I don't like it". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you have anything new to add, that I feel I should address, I will do so here, otherwise, please refer to my previous comments on this talk page. I have no interest in repeating myself, going round in circles or interacting with you, anymore than is necessary. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel you should address the violations of the WP:NPOV policy enumerated above. You're censored every scrap of independent criticism and commentary in favor of puff and fluff published by the article's subject company. That should be addressed urgently, since it's a core Wikipedia policy. Thanks!If you're too busy, I'll do it. I've got a balanced version ready to go. OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Appropriate coverage of the speed claim aspect of the Tomahawk has been discussed in detail by a number of editors, and there is agreement that the current version of the article is appropriately balanced based on sources. Of course, this doesn't preclude article expansion, but it does indicate the reasonable amount of emphasis for the speed claim. Introducing an entirely new version of the article, Draft:Dodge Tomahawk, to replace the current one I do not support, for reasons already described. I am as rigorous an article reviewer as any editor participating in Good Articles, and that's my view. --Tsavage (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

the article looks good now. no need for a new version or more junk on top speed Zachlita (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, et al.: I think a major reason that this discussion isn't progressing from a deadlock is that clear objectives haven't been stated here, as far as I can tell. Might it be helpful (especially for those of us who haven't been following this discussion for a long time) to briefly enumerate the various points which you believe are lacking from this mainspace article, so we can all address them point-by-point?  Right now, I don't see the two opposing sides coming to any middle ground if there are only two diametrically opposed arguments being given - that there is either "too much information on this topic", or alternatively "not enough information on this topic".  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence
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 &#124; guestbook &#124; 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 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. 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. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 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)

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)