Talk:Kawasaki H2 Mach IV

Dodge Hemi Cuda.
WTF is a "Dodge Hemi Cuda"? A cross between a Plymouth Barracuda and Dodge Challenger? --Bridge Boy (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2015 Kawasaki Ninja H2
Kawasaki has started teasing some details of a new H2 to be formally announced at Intermot.
 * Teaser video announces Kawasaki Ninja H2, Sport Rider
 * The new supercharged Kawasaki Ninja H2 is coming soon, Asphalt and Rubber
 * Kawasaki Teases the Upcoming Ninja H2, Is It the Supercharged Machine?, Autoevolution
 * 2015 Kawasaki Ninja H2 Coming Soon, Motorcycle USA
 * Kawasaki Ninja H2: a Colonia torna il motore sovralimentato?, Motociclismo
 * Kawasaki teases Ninja H2, motorcycle.com
 * Kawasaki Neuheit Projekt Ninja H2, Motorrad


 * — associated article

The H-2 mentioned here is in no way related to the H-2 bikes from the seventies. Jackhammer111 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Brian added this list of sources on September 2 and 3, 2014. He created the new article on the H-2 Ninja on September 10. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's totally pointless. Did someone ask what the dates the material was added were? Do you have some point other than sticking something in every time I write here? Actually you may be pointing out that since there is a page about the Ninja with all these links in it, there is no point in it still being here. There's even mention of it at the top of the H-2 article. I was just pointing out that just because those things about the Ninja H2 are on the original H-2's talk page does not mean the new motorcycle is in any way related to the old one. This isn't a new H-2 or a modern version of it, or an extension of the original H-2 designed or concepts. It is not related and not relevant.Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Prior. To. The. Existence. Of. The. New. Article. The. Only. Logical. Place. To. Discuss. The. New. H-2. Was. This. Article. Please stop being such an asshole. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

On your talk page i notice many people claiming you were going out of your way to provoke them. You get into one beef after another. I have never found anybody on Wikipedia that that angered as many people as you do and still avoid being disciplined.

Now, you are trying to provoke me. Any self respecting person would respond to what you just called me.

I never said I wanted to take the Nija H-2 part off this page since it is merely a talk page. If it was on the article page I'd be justified in removing it and your "::Prior. To. The. Existence. Of. The. New. Article. The. Only. Logical. Place. To. Discuss. The. New. H-2. Was. This. Article." argument would be meaningless. In fact, it has no meaning here as a response to anything I said. Just like what you said in your comment before had no meaning related to what I wrote. But this is how you provoke. You poke by writing something just to be writing something. It's obviously intentionally argumentative.

I tried to make it clear to anybody who comes to this page that the new bike and the bike that is the subject of this take page are in no way related, which would be an easy miss-impression to get given what page it is on. Quoting dates and talking about prior to had nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. Even if a new page did not exist what I wrote would have the same intent and same meaning. Have a nice day. Jackhammer111 (talk)

Bennet
the Bennet reference is not self publish nor does it look like a copy and past from here, not sure what you were alluding to there. I also would not call it a highly reliable source but it is not used to make any substantial claims, it is solely just supporting a reliable source MCNews.com.au. We could go to the reliable source noticeboard or we could remove it, you can choose the path, I'm not married to it.-72bikers (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The Racing Tail
Now that a hostile editor who has been WP:OWNing and WP:WARring over the content of many hyper/powerbike articles is no more, I would like to - once again - try to address the historical inaccuracies derived from BS and hommage to Kawasaki. Unfortunately, the general hostility on WP has now escalated to such an extent that WP:BOLD is often negated. The above (Racing Tail) was entirely original research as seen in this revision. As it was such a long time ago, I've actually forgotten the detail, but the hostile editor swung into action immediately keyword-searching for a modern piece to submit under (my per hate) WP:VNT. Historically, the first major manufacturer to employee a fixed tailpiece with integrated rear lamp was Norton on the 1967/8 Commando Fastback (fibreglass, as was the fuel tank). For completeness, I would request anyone knowing of (or who already has) genuine historical hard-published evidence of the term fastback as applied to bikes or cars to think about it (nothing modern, nothing web). The article is still obviously inaccurate - was always obvious - describing "The race tail covered most of the taillight assembly behind the seat" - the rear lamp is not shrouded, as can be seen in the 1972 early-bike image (later type from 1974 was similarly unshrouded but slightly more elongated File:1974 Kawasaki H2 Mach IV.jpg). My earlier research turned up another small-volume manufacturer of dirt-only machines in 1964, together with HD (I was staggered) offering a similar option for one of their twins in 1967. I would like to continue with my long-term plan to rectify WP's historical inaccuracies, including where there was similar ownership/warring at Motorcycle fairing (starting with this revision) with further hostility evidenced in the subsequent history. Thank you for your attention.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but we need to stick close to what is actually verifiable in sources. Is this superlative "first race tail", even a real thing? Why don't secondary sources speak of it? There are long articles about this bike, yet no words about the tail. I think "my own research" is absolute correct: it's original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2012 article cited in 2017 emanates from a 2009-established website - no archives, no staff mentioned, owned by two individuals, I'd guess clickbait. Another title associated with the same owner is Motorbike search engine - a fuller-list including defunct titles can be seen with the owner's name here. I've started to look again and it's coming back to me a bit, as in this revision, Morini pics here. There's also an MV with similar styling in Johnny Stuart's Rockers! book which is partly-obscured and I've not yet identified - neither of the latter two were large volume, I'm thinking.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the Harley - 1969, a bit later than I remembered. "XLCH stylists have created an optional fiberglass seat/rear fender unit. If you like your Sportster the good old way, you don't have to buy it. But we think it is rather racer-ly." --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)