User talk:JHE.1973

Welcome!
Hello, JHE.1973, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Softail has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On self-published sources and citing yourself
Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies make it a difficult place to set the record straight (i.e. WP:RGW) because it isn't really acceptable to cite yourself, or your own web site or other social media, as the sole source of information about yourself, or things you've experienced. If you would like to share previously unreported information, your best bet is to contact a journalist or author who can publish something about the topic, and that can then be cited on Wikipedia.We would very much welcome your participation in writing about motorcycles and motorcycling, but it is best when you use your knowledge and experiences as guides to finding the best sources to cite for content you add to articles.Please ask questions and seek help if you need further information. There are many ways to find someone who can assist you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can not find any 'Reply' tab or link. Is this how I reply? JHE.1973 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing talk pages is not really different than editing articles. You can click "Edit" at the top and start writing. You normally want your reply to go below the person you're replying to. You can use a colon  to indent the thread. If you want to start a new discussion, you can either click "New section" or click "edit" and add a new section with a header like this  . Discussions belong on the talk page of the subject. If the subject is the article, use the article talk page. If the subject is an editor, use the editor's talk page.See Tutorial/Talk pages for more help.The Help link at the left is a good guide to get started. There's lots of places (too many) to ask questions at: Questions. If it's about editing motorcycling topics, I'd start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. Since at the moment what we're talking about is the XLCR, I'd go to Talk:Harley-Davidson XLCR and start a new thread there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Dennis,


 * Thank you for your response and to your concerns about my edit on the Softail article, which I have changed to (I hope) bring it into alignment with policy.
 * I have spent a lot of time searching Wiki topics to get a handle on just what it is that Wiki wants as far as contributions to an encyclopedia. I need to stress right away that I am not looking to debate you on the subject of Wiki policy. i.e. I am not upset, angry or whatever and I appreciate your taking the time to offer your constructive observations.
 * So, that being said, what seems to be clear is that Wiki values the published word as more valuable than a person's own experience. This has led me to ask, "If Einstein was to try to use Wiki to edit his Theory of Relativity, would he be refused until someone else published an article about it?"
 * On the Wikipedia:Verifiability topic I found, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My involvement with Harley-Davidson has been mentioned in several magazine articles through the years and in Willie G. Davidson's book, "100 Years of Harley-Davidson".
 * In your view, can this be construed as qualifying me as an expert on the Softail and XLCR projects?
 * I also realize that it is probably somewhat unusual for a crafts person/artist to write about his or her work. The artists that I am familiar with are too busy just practicing and improving their craft to write about it.
 * I grew up in my dad's machine shop and have spent over 50 years practicing what he had told me, "You shouldn't have to brag, your workmanship should speak for itself". I will honor whatever the Wiki community believes as far as my edits and my credibility. I have no interest in starting any trouble as I have already proven what I can do.


 * Thanks so much for your input, help and most of all, your time.


 * Sincerely,


 * JHE.1973 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would Einstein have any trouble getting his ideas published in any number of scientific journals? Couldn't Einstein call up CNN or the LA Times or anybody he wanted and say, "Hey come interview me, I have something to say"? If you're the Einstein of Harely-Davidson engineering, then could't you call up Cycle World or American Iron or HOG Journal and say the same thing? It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that on the one hand, Einstein is a famous scientist and a recognized expert, but on the other hand, he has things to say that nobody will publish and so he has to go an edit Wikipedia himself.Wikipedia definitely doesn't value a person's own experience, their eyewitness testimony, and experts (while appreciated) don't have a special status. How did it end up like this? Start reading at Larry Sanger and Expert editors for the history.There's a thousand other media channels where anyone can talk about their own personal experiences and observations, but Wikipedia is not one of them. In particular, autobiographical accounts (tweets, personal web pages, etc) that involve other living people would be avoided, as explained in Using the subject as a self-published source. Since Willie G. Davidson, Jim Haubert, and at least some of managers at H-D are still living, we'd want to cite an independent source about specific things that living people did. If this were about people who were no longer living, we'd have a little more latitude in citing their self-published material. When you have something "previously unreported", it raises a lot of red flags when you are citing yourself for it.As far as being an expert on the subject matter, it is possible for an established expert (a published author, someone who third party sources have cited as knowledgeable) to cite a self-published website on the subject, but staying away from living people. Facts about the bikes are fine, but maybe not personal interactions, decisions they made, the motives behind a decision, and so on, unless they can be published elsewhere. Much of this H-D history is verifiable by sources like Alan Girdler, so the safest, best choice is to just cite them whenever possible. Then there's no question. You can cite offline sources available only on dead trees. We take your word for it that the books say what you say they do.Theses policies are complicated, and my opinion on how to interpret them is just my opinion. The best thing, in almost any case, is to see what others think, by asking the question at Talk:Softail (the specific bike), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling (bikes in general), Reliable sources/Noticeboard (overall policy questions). I'm sure other editors will have another view besides mine.I'm not a recognized expert or published author, but you can hit up someone who is, User:Vintagent, Paul d'Orléans in real life, who has a few books out there and writes for Cycle World, BikeEXIF and others, in addition to editing Wikipedia. He has cited himself on the subject of motorcycling, and that's fine. His eyewitness account of the death of Clifford Vaughs has raised some questions, and I'm not sure I know the answer to that one. Ask d'Orléans about his approach.I hope you keep contributing and involve others in any discussion. Keep in mind there's many topics that can be expanded (important bikes, to do list) without having to rely on yourself as the only source, and then editing Wikipedia becomes much more fun and easy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "fine" for Paulo Delorean to cite himself, contradicting what Jim has correctly quoted above "...Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications " (underscoring added by Rocknrollmancer). I've just taken a month off-Wiki, and drafted a response piece for Clifford Vaughs (talk) a good while back. Dennis Bratland should be applying Wiki-precepts equitably, neutrally, not making exceptions for one individual, recommending others to contact him directly to find out how. Vintagent shouldn't have written the article based on his own recent works and similarly should not quote himself. I blogged him years ago and he turned it into a joke - interesting point of view, but completely unsubstantiated, historically. The way that WP is supposed to work is that someone else should write the Clifford Vaughs piece based on the new, glossy book. Internet sources can/will read the Wikipedia article, copy it, then someone else can come along and cite the website as a source - WP:CIRCULAR. Jim, I am into my fourth year of investigating Wikipedia, and have largely quit submitting prose but still doing mucho research, as it crosses-over both ways into the other off-Wiki stuff I am involved in. My big beef with the flawed Wikipedia system is that people wanting to be cool use search engines to find recent publications, then apply them to try to establish history, possibly containing flawed material and potentially distorting history; by way of their non-expert status, it goes unrecognised. Due to high search engine ratings, people see it, believe it and copy it. That it's published is enough for Wikipedia - it doesn't have to be 'right'; it covered in WP:verifiability not truth. The internet and it's myriad of publications are mostly unregulated, and may not endure, whereas under traditional publishing juniors came up through the ranks under supervision, and with the auspices and archives of the publishing houses and 'friendly rival' colleagues to consult with. Anyways, it's 4.40AM here and after the Presedential debate I should get some sleep.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rocknrollmancer for the additional information, support and for staying up so late. :o)


 * Regarding traditional publishing, many of the same problems have been around a long time. In 1972 I was the machinist for Harley's race department and each Monday during the race season I would have the chance to discuss the weekend's race(s) with the mechanics who had traveled with team riders. Often the reports in the magazines and racing newspapers seemed to describe a race that had little in common with what the mechanics and racers experienced. Same was true of articles telling of performance modifications. H-D racing had spent a lot of dyno time testing many so called 'hop ups' that actually hurt the power. But these details somehow escaped the writers. I was once told by a magazine contributor that editors would ask for an article on a certain subject and tell perspective writers what it was worth. The responsible writers would not take certain jobs so the editor turned to 'cut-rate' writers who would pop out anything for the quick dollar.


 * Hi Dennis,


 * Regarding the 'previously unreported' comment I started with, almost all of my work was done in semi-secrecy. That makes it very difficult to find other sources to quote. Your mention of Alan Girdler had me chuckle slightly. Alan and I both wrote articles for the Competition Network Newsletter some years ago. He had called me when he needed some details for a bike of his and he mentioned the interest he had in the book I have been threatening to write/finish for years. During this discussion he mentioned that all those writing about H-D (himself included) have come after the fact. "You were there and have a perspective other writers don't have", he said.


 * I feel I am getting a grip on what Wiki wants and I don't think I'll have a problem playing by the rules. However, I must add that I am still very active and have very limited time, so I don't know how often I can get here.


 * Thank you both!


 * JHE.1973 (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)JHE.1973