This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I edited three separate incidents with POV concerns (Seattle, Berkley, and San Fransisco). The July San Fransisco section in specific was overt. Please edit as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have some concerns with the recent edits by Nolatime in the '97 incident in San Fransisco.
The recent edits turned the section into a concern with mass arrests which overshadows the conflicts directly related to that evening's Critical Mass ride.
A single undated and incomplete article from the SF Examiner does not supersede the other sources. Please find another or complete source for the number of arrests if you believe it is in dispute.
The "By accident or by design: the police riot on Market Street" you refer readers to might be OK in the External Links section but further overweights the section and is out of place. I don't know how valid the source is (especially when compared to more orthodox news sources) and there is obviously a NPOV point to make from the site.
Are the Eugene Hill and Bennett Hall paragraphs related?rimmed too much and came across with POV myself. If blame needs to be assigned it should go in in
I did not think a statement regarding blame was necessary when I originally edited the section from its nonneutral state. Both sources don't support the final sentence regarding who is at fault (original research/interpretation).Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got some concerns about the wording of the Berkeley incident. The factual description and the legal analysis are inconsistent. The article states that "a motorist met an intersection with dozens of bicycles crossing," but also claims that "it is not clear who had the right of way." If the factual description is accurate, then the issue of right of way is clear. The California Vehicle Code states: "The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway." The citation supporting the unclear right of way assertion is from an SF Chronicle article which states: "Police have not determined who had the right of way at the intersection." The fact that police have made no determination does not imply that the answer is unclear, only that they haven't made a determination.
I'm guessing the easiest fix would be to change "it is not clear who had the right of way" to "police have not determined who had the right of way." Anyone see issues with this change?
FYI. Police officer in a Critical Mass Conflict in New York. Ikip (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor just brought it up again in an edit summary. This was actually discussed in depth and it was merged into here. WP:ONEEVENT. However, an editor recently cleaned house and probably took too much out. See: the difference here. I will restore the info deleted to the Conflicts involving Critical Mass page since it is where it belongs. Clean up can go from there.Cptnono (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It is in. It looks up to date. I have not been able to find informaiton on the resolution of the civil suit or criminal charges. These may still be ongoing. The basic informaiton needed is Pogan hit him without provocation, lied about it, got caught, and court stuff is ongoing. We have a little too much detial as is in my opinion but that might just be me. I think the edit removing so much of the informaiton might have been a little rash, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On Friday June 20th, 2008, a car accidentally bumped into the rear wheel of one of the participants of the ride. An oral argument ensued between the driver and passenger of the car and the cyclist involved, after which both of the passenger and driver of the car assaulted the cyclist. The police showed up and arrested both the passenger and driver of the automobile involved in the assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Weael words in the lede? ("Critics claim") without a balancing viewpoint? What do proponents of the ride think? Is it necessary to have this information in the lede at all? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it is about conflicts so it will not be all rosey. Agree about WP:CLAIM though. I will fix that. Unless there are sources for their response to the criticism I will be removing the tag.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Dispute was not resolved, weasel words still in the lede. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was. "Say" is not a weasel word.Cptnono (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added the video of the incident as a reference. I do think it greatly serves as a reference to the incident, a strongly visual one. But don't know exactly how to treat "video as a reference". --eks (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed since it was contributory copyright infringement. An essay with details is WP:VIDEOLINKCptnono (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)