Talk:Streetfighter (motorcycle)

Reads like WP:OR

• It is also possible that the streetfigther came about simply because young stunters of the 80s in the UK couldn't afford to replace their damaged fairings after repeated crashes, so they took them off. Later, more appropriate headlights were added, then high handlebars to aid in wheelies and other stunts.[4]

This section reads to me like WP:OR. I can see the cite, but has anyone other than this one journalist acknowledged this "fact" ? Angelstorm (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would answer this as follows:

1. It can't be WP:OR because it cites a reliable, secondary source. Which can of course always be in error, but there isn't much you can do except report who said it, and where you got it, unless other sources line up to contradict it.

2. It is not presented as fact. The Cycle World author is speculating on the possible motives of people in the past, and the article makes it clear in the footnote. It's a sound, logical theory, and worthy of mention.

3. As the footnote says, the origin of streetfighters is disputed. The very definition of what is a "real" streetfigther is disputed. We're not talking about the question of who first discovered penicillin, so of course with a topic like this it will have to be nothing more than the opinions of experts, and common sense.

4. There are other secondary sources I have seen which share the opinion that this might be the origin of the streetfighter. I will add them when I am able to track them down.

5. Another theory as to the origin of streetfighters is presented first, and it is given more weight. The second theory is simply mentioned. I would say that more writers guess the second theory than the first, mostly because they never heard about the creation of custom frames in the 80's.

I'm not saying this article doesn't need work; definitely there are parts of it that are weak, could use citations, or expansion, or should be removed. I have a copy of the Cycle World cited, and if you have specific questions about the source I can answer them. --Dbratland (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for the move ... no idea why I top-posted ;)

Anyway, my concern is the use of "It is also possible" here. WP *should* be factual, not speculative. I think with a rewrite and additional cites then this section may read better. As said, my beef is that it *reads* as if it is WP:OR, not that it actually is. Otherwise, I would have pruned, not discussed :) Angelstorm (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered the other place I read it was in one of the books already cited, so I added a quote. Theories as to the origin of the streetfighter are perfectly fine as long as the one doing the theorizing has some claim to authority, such as authors in reputable publications. If you couldn't talk about where something might have come from, you'd have to gut hundreds of articles on rap music, rock and roll, the Lindy -- you name it. I think it is more than sufficient to phrase it in a way that shows the author is making an educated guess. But you don't want to over do the disclaimers, as per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.

But of course if you wish to improve the wording, by all means, do so. I always favor improvement. --Dbratland (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, happy enough with the reasoning. Still *personally* not happy with the way the statement is made. Will cogitate and consider a rewrite tomorrow. Angelstorm (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove quotes from citations?

I have frequently included quotes in the {{Citation}} template, merely as a convenience for others. But I've discovered that other editors will often refer only what they see in the quotes to check a citation, rather than going and actually reading all of the pages cited. Many of these sources are not online, of course. Since it is impossible to quote the entire source in the citation, it's probably best to remove the quotations entirely. This would force anyone who wishes to verify the source to go and get the book and read it, which is the traditional means of verification. --Dbratland (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)