Talk:Critical Mass (cycling)/Archives/2007

Critical Ass merge

I recommend that this brief article be merged into the main Critical Mass article, given that the content is very limited, and Critical Ass is presented as just a variant of Critical Mass. Bwithh 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Though probably Critical Ass should just be deleted. There seems to be no verifiable information. Reference link is dead, or doesn't load. --Mattarata 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also support merge (yes, per "nom"), though perhaps not into Critical Mass. I'm slightly confused as to what Critical Ass means. I suspect it's not really a variant of Critical Mass (ie, no planned route), but instead just a very clever play on words. The link on the Critical Ass page (which worked for me) says that it is "part of the City of Toronto's 16th annual Bike Week" and had a total of 5 participants; if this is the case, Critical Ass won't be notable enough to generate more than a stub. However, the World Naked Bike Ride seems to suggest that "critical ass" is more of a descriptive term than a specific ride (ie, any rhizomal clothing optional bike ride, or even any clothing optional bike ride). I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need an expert. --gwc 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Critical Ass has been merged to Clothing-optional bike rides per WP:MM (the no comment part). --gwc 03:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Minivan incident in San Francisco.

[1]

Just read this item this morning. I note that there's no mention in the article about the car vandalism and harassment that goes well beyond civil disobedience. Is there a reason? It can't be POV, since this certainly does occur.Chunky Rice 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason, and it's that car vandalism rarely occurs, even though this SF Chronicle article makes it seem like it happens all the time. I have never seen it with my own eyes, and have never read about it (before now) except in one case in SF when a woman keyed a car after the driver intentionally poured his coffee on her. <Comments unrelated to the article removed> --gwc 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• What about incidents mentioned in the following articles? "Lackner walked across the hood of a pickup truck parked on a sidewalk in San Francisco. When the truck's owner, a woman named Kerry Shea, chased him down and grabbed him by his backpack, he flung her into a plate-glass window, according to court and police records. He was convicted of battery and vandalism (for the damage he did to her truck) and later sentenced to 30 days in the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program, a 60-day suspended jail sentence, three years' probation, and court-ordered therapy." [2], "...issues about them pounding, doing vandalism to cars."[3], "there are rogue elements that are combative, and they damage the reputation of bicycle advocates. When people are kicking cars and yelling at drivers, that's not good for the bicycle community's cause." [4]? This group event has a well known reputation for vandalism and harassment in San Francisco. I can't speak to other areas where it may occur, but I can certainly produce more citations of that reputation here. It seems like it should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article.Chunky Rice 20:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• This isn't to say that auto drivers are without responsibility. But the fact remains that this isn't an isolated incident.Chunky Rice 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It strikes me that this isn't vandalism, it's at least assault. The mayor addressed it at a news conference today, and that makes it worthy of inclusion. Being sympathetic to Critical Mass does not mean you need to whitewash their misdeeds. King Mongo 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that this SF incident be removed from the article until it is no longer a current event. Information is changing too quickly, and at the moment rather limited, and I think objectivity is hard to achieve at this point. If nobody objects, I'll remove the new paragraph until more info is available. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Doctormatt 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Chunky Rice, it looks like I was mistaken. The empirics of vandalism/assault of course should be included; I suppose whether or not the cars are partially at fault is immaterial in a NPOV setting. Also, I actually had the same concern as above, the recent SF incident sounds too current-events-y; but, I think that can be fixed by structuring it as one citation (of maybe 2-3) of vandalism/assault. But beware the newspaper articles can be non-NPOV. --gwc 01:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would agree. The facts of this particular incident are still moving too fast. I still maintain that there needs to be a section on vandalism and harassment, though. Right now this article is strongly pro-Critical Mass POV.Chunky Rice 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the description of the incident to one more general regarding vandalism/agressiveness. I also changed the source to a more balanced SF Chron article that came out today, which also discusses the history of incidents. I believe what I wrote is factual and NPOV. If you disagree, let me know.Chunky Rice 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the phrase "has a reputation" is too vague for an encyclopedia entry. Are a few quotes in a few newspaper articles sufficient to support a claim of a "reputation"? I think this is debatable. A well-done poll of the general public's attitude toward CM would be more scientific and meaningful, if the general public's attitude toward CM is what you are trying to capture with the term "reputation". I think simply stating, as I did in the article, that there have been various claims of violence made is true, accurate, and neutral. And it is well-referenced, thanks to the article reference you provided. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think you're going overboard trying to whitewash CM. I mean, I can produce quotes for police officials, mayors, participants saying that such a reputation exists, but we need a scientific poll in order to include it? I have some real NPOV issues with this article as a whole. Critical Mass is a highly controversial event/organization/whatever. That's not reflected in this article at all. Even the sections on incidents reads like an outcry for biker's rights.Chunky Rice 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that editors should take a wider perspective here. On the day of the above incident many thousands of cyclists, in hundreds of cities around the world took part in events under the banner of 'Critical Mass'. Unless there is evidence that similar incidents took place at all of these events it is highly POV to generalise and cast an aspersion of vandalism/agressiveness on thousands of people based on a single incident involving a few cyclists at one particular event. —Jeremy (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is evidence of a history of similar behavior in San Francisco (the origin of the event and I think the largest) going back years and years. I think that's enough. From personal experience I know that you can't even mention Critical Mass without discussion of the bad behavior. Reliable sources will back me up on this. I don't want to make unilateral edits to this article. I would prefer to come to some sort of consensus on how to address it. But if editors refuse to acknowledge it at all, I would feel compelled to do it myself.Chunky Rice 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Or maybe an RFC would be a good idea if we can't come to some sort of understanding here.Chunky Rice 23:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• San Francisco is just one of many cities with Critical Masses. If appropriate sources can be found, I think that the following would be enough: "In San Francisco, Critical Mass has a history of conflict, with claims of both driver-initiated and cyclist-initiated violence."

• If reliable sources show that violence is a problem on SF rides then this sentence is fine. —Jeremy (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• I really think that there needs to be a "criticisms" or "controversy" section addressing those things, and a general NPOV sweep of the entire article. It really reads like a propaganda piece right now.Chunky Rice 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree the article needs cleaning. Weasel words abound. Many parts will need to be removed unless references are found. -SCEhardT 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have had a go at de-weaseling this article before. Unfortunately they creep back in over time. I suggest that any unsourced claims be marked with {{fact}} and removed if not sourced to reliable sources within some reasonable period of time (say, 1 or 2 weeks). —Jeremy (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've tagged what I consider to be some of the more eggregious statements. I'll give it a week before I remove them.Chunky Rice 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I feel like I've given the community enough time to source these statements, with no result. I'm going to remove them now.Chunky Rice 03:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion related to the content of the article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. -SCEhardT 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Forum and references

I just reverted the addition of a link to a forum site as a reference for the first paragraph of the last section, Reaction of other cyclists, as forum links are in the list of "links normally to be avoided" at WP:external links. I absolutely agree that there are many cyclists out there that have negative things to say about CM, but I don't think this is a reliable reference for this. I'll be looking for a better one.

Two interesting sources for CM info/references that I came across today:

• a communication phd dissertation on CM and related topics: [5]
• a collection of essays on CM: [6]

These are decidedly pro-CM, but the dissertation especially has quite a variety of references that might be worth mining. If people find useful CM sources, maybe they could add them here so others can use them in adding references to the article? Cheers, Doctormatt 05:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More incidents in SF

Just for those of you who think that above incident is isolated.

March 30 - During critical mass, biker slashed the tires of a limo. March 30 - Bikers smash the back windshield of a van. Chunky Rice 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source for the limo [7]. The other one, now that I look at it, seems like it may be the same incident that was listed above. It was mentioned on the morning news as a separate one, but I don't find a mention of it anywhere else.Chunky Rice 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts with motorists

This section clearly reports false information about the March 30 event, though it continues to get reverted every time a change is made. "woman found herself in the middle of a group of bicyclists and tried to drive through them resulting in hundreds of bicyclists surrounding her minivan." This is crap. There is a clear video of the event and it showed no more the FIVE people surrounding the car. Also, no bike was thrown through the car's window. I believe it was a box of some kind. The source provided obviously is not credible when you can look at the video and see the discrepancies for yourself. This section is clearly biased and not based on the actual facts.

That video is of a different incident, so of course it doesn't conform.Chunky Rice 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

May 11 conflict - surrounded the car?

There are various claims as to what occured. One issue is whether or not the car was "surrounded". The Bicycle Civil Liberties Union sources claim that the car driver attacked the mass. From this perspective, the car forced its way into the mass, and found bicycles all around it, but the car was the active agent. The contrary view is that the bicyclists were the active agent, and "surrounded" the essentially idle, passive car. One perspective is as a swarm of bees attacking a helpless baby, the other as a knife piercing a yielding abdomen. They are contrary, and each must be sourced. Doctormatt 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't like how the qualifier makes it sound like the entire event (the breaking of the windshield, for example) is in contention, however. I removed both the qualifier and the word "surrounded." Hopefully that's satisfactory to all parties. Chunky Rice 00:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Corking image

Why was this image shrunken? It's not really useful/legible at its current size. -Chunky Rice 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOS#Images: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article."

There are exceptions, but not in this case. It just makes the pages compliant for all users. One can click on them for a bigger view anyhow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Woudln't the exception be: "Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include: When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts" (from WP:MOS#Images)? -Chunky Rice 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I misintepreterted what you said. I had no idea what you meant at first from the corking image (and I participate in critical mass, doh...). Yeah, that can be restored to a larger size, or whatever you feel is good. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I switched it back to its previous size. Just big enough to be legible. -Chunky Rice 01:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

General image question

Does the article really need 5 different images of recent Critical Mass events? They're scattered all through the article in sections that they're not really relevant to. -Chunky Rice 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a <gallery></gallery> (gallery) could be added at the end? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I placed one in, it did wonders! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks much better. Good work. -Chunky Rice 01:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need for a gallery within this article. All but one of the images included are already in the commons gallery, which is linked from the article. If there are too many images in the article, some of them should just be taken out —Jeremy (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, too. I just didn't want them cluttering up the article. -Chunky Rice 04:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of Violent Reaction section

I removed this section today as unsourced. I checked around the web, including the Chicago Critical Mass listserv, and found no mention of such an incident. Perhaps I missed something, and in that case the editor can replace the section with proper citations. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I approve. -Chunky Rice 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of Eugene ambulance story

I removed the Eugene ambulance bit. The cited article does not state there was a delay, merely that police claim there was one. As such, I don't think this warrants inclusion: one such event, even if an ambulance was delayed, is not notable. To quote the article: "...a 1997 Critical Mass ride here that may have delayed an ambulance...". Doctormatt 22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point I had moved it to the Structure section simply to highlight the difficulties of coordinating with a leaderless group. Not sure if that's any better. Either way, it's not a big loss. -Chunky Rice 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you actually were referring to my version. I thought it had already been reverted out. I really think you're a bit overagressive going after stuff that's negative on CM. Particularly, iven all the uncited pro-unstructured stuff in the preceding paragraph. I was just using this article to highlight that the police have difficulty coordinating with a leaderless group. Certainly, there are numerous other articles to back that up. Are you contesting that? -Chunky Rice 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I put it back, removing the material that seemed to concern you. -Chunky Rice 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think this is notable. How do cops "coordinate" with the traffic on the freeway in an emergency? How is that different from CM? In any case, one cop making a few statements does not seem notable, so I changed the article to make it clear that the given source is very specific. Doctormatt 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

When there's a parade, for example, that has a permit and coordinates with authorities, they are able to very quickly get emergency vehicles through. Not so with Critical Mass, which deliberately refuses to follow planned routes and ignores traffic laws. The issue isn't the bikes themselves, which can certainly get out of the way quickly, but rather the large traffic jams that they intentionally create. With a parade, the police are prepared and can direct traffic around the route. Not so when they don't know where Critical Mass will be. I'll start gathering sources for you, because I've seen this particular complaint mentioned many times. Here's one in NY. It should also make a good ref for the "reaction of cycling community" bit. [8]

What would be really great is references to actual delays, as opposed to just references of police claims of delays, though of course those have their place too. Speaking of delays, perhaps you could work in some of this [9] court declaration, which estimated that CM in Manhattan causes negligible delays compared to those caused by the traffic system generally. That would be great. Doctormatt 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's claims of delays you'd be willing to accept, if not the police. Also,that's not a declaration by the court. It's the declaration of an individual and isn't any more definitive than the one cop who's opinion you're so skeptical of. I guess it's under oath, but that's about it. I believe the court ruling actually went the other way -Chunky Rice 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly more skeptical of cops than I am of other sources. I simply feel that if claims of delays are to be added to the article, it is extremely important that who is making those claims be included in the body of the article (and not hidden in the sources) and that counter claims be included as well, in order to maintain NPOV. By "court declaration" I meant a declaration to a court, which is what it is ("Charles Kamanoff declares under perjury..."). As for "going the other way", the ruling stated that the city of New York "and its police officers and agents are preliminarily enjoined from seizing bicycles used by participants in the October 29, 2004 Critical Mass bike ride unless said participants are charged with a crime or violation of law". This is what the plaintiffs were seeking. Doctormatt 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that police report... etc. I know what a declaration is (I work in civil litigation), it just seemed like you didn't. My mistake about the case. I just find it odd that you go after these statements so aggressively and leave all of the other unsourced stuff lying around. -Chunky Rice 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CM pisses a lot of people off, and my impression is that that causes a lot of the edits here, "edits of passion" if you will. There are very few people working on keeping this article neutral, so when anonymous editors throw negative POV stuff in, I take notice. I've got my hands on two good CM resources, so hopefully I'll be filling in more sources soon. I'll be using [10](amazon link for reference, but check your local library!) and [11]. Perhaps you would like to use these and add some sources, too, eh? Cheers, Doctormatt 05:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While I admit that I'm not particularly fond of Critical Mass, I don't feel like my edits have been "edits of passion." Mostly, I just try to fix those additions and work them into the article. I consider myself to be working on NPOV as well, you know. That's why I was trying to provide some balance the Structure section, which is really just a bunch of unsournced POV statements about how great a leaderless organization is. -Chunky Rice 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was including you in the "very few people" - you make lots of good edits. I don't see any non-neutral statements in the Structure section, except perhaps (a) the "escape clampdown" statement, and (b) the "free from structural costs" statement. I'll see what I can do to find sources for this section. Doctormatt 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for misinterpreting. It can be tough with just text, sometimes. I changed the part in the structure section and also put something in the conflict with authorities section. It's the same stuff, but slightly different emphasis. I wouldn't mind if you removed one of them, but I think that oen or the other should probably stick around.-Chunky Rice 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reworking article

I'm being bold and rewriting the article a bit to add cites, make it more NPOV and improve the overall structure. Hopefully, everybody thinks the new version is great, but if you don't, I ask that you try and fix the new version instead of simply reverting back to the old one, because overall, I do think that this is an improvement. -Chunky Rice 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting related articles

http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2006/07/05/bike/view/index2.html?order=asc

Discussion from both sides. Well, three sides actually. Pro-CMers, Bike haters and Bikers who hate irresponsible bikers that they associate with CM

http://www.ebbc.org/?q=node/485

Hank Resnik, Co-Founder of the Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition critical of Critical Mass

Both have a lot of information about the conflicts (internal and external) Critical Mass causes. Not good for sourcing because it's opinion but maybe helpful for editors. 198.6.46.11 21:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Critical Mass protests/bike rides/pretentious jackass love-fests are controversial subject and tempers run hot when discussing it. There are many many edits and reverts of questionable nature happening constantly. Thus the neutrality of the subject can constantly be in question depending on what side of the issue you are on. I have tagged it as such. 198.6.46.11 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag is for when you have specific complaints that the article is not written from a neutral point of view. As you have not raised any POV issues I have removed the tag. —Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Critical Mass (bicycling)

Right now, there are two pages Critical mass (nuclear fission) and Critical Mass (this bicycling / social movement page). This is HORRIBLE in terms of how the Media Wiki software works... the only difference being a capital letter is highly dangerous for the way searches work.

I'd like to propose renaming this page to Critical Mass (bicycling), or another unambiguous name which is safely not conflicting with the scientific usage. Comments? Georgewilliamherbert 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I can't think of any downside, and it would make things clearer. Doctormatt 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. I don't think it is necessary. No one is likely to confuse nuclear fission with a bicycle ride—if they end up at the wrong page it will be immediately apparent to them that they are on the wrong page and there are clear links on both pages to the disambiguation page. The bike ride is easily the most common use of the term Critical Mass as a proper noun. —Jeremy (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what is the harm in adding the "(bicycling)" bit to make the title clearer? It would make it consistent with all the other "critical mass" pages on WP (expect for the fission one). Doctormatt 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything wrong with "Critical Mass" as a proper noun; there's no confusion there. This issue is entirely because we now have two articles which are both identical except for one letter in capitalization. Several of the search routines can match case independently in article titles. It's really, really bad practice to end up with any two article titles that are that close together.

If you like, we can rename both of them (Critical Mass -> Critical Mass (bicycling and Critical mass -> Critical mass (nuclear fission)) or some sort, so that it's fair and even to both articles. With the number of different related named pages in use now, we really should have a central disambiguation page, on further reflection... so that would be what should be at the "Critical mMass" page(s). Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The current naming of these two articles is the result of consensus reached at Talk:Critical mass. The search issue seems a non-issue to me—a search for 'critical mass' gives both articles in the search results, the reader can easily choose the one wanted. There already is a central disambiguation page at Critical mass (disambiguation). —Jeremy (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed my mind. There already is a Critical Mass (bicycle) page which redirects to Critical Mass. The current naming system seems to have been the consensus reached at Talk:Critical mass. Doctormatt 04:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Corking section

So, I just reverted a change from "...so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without fear of motor vehicles becoming embedded in the mass of riders. This allows the Mass to act as a single large (or very large) vehicle." back to "so that the mass can freely proceed through red lights without interruption." In my opinion, my version is much less POV/OR. Thoughts? -Chunky Rice 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

POV is a bit hard here; I could not really find any info that was not anecdotal. Discussion of corking tends towards specific tactics with the implicit assumption that it is necessary. The danger of vehicles within the mass and the idea of the mass acting as a single very large vehicle are embedded concepts in these discussions without being explicitly stated. Since the section contains criticism of corking in the 2nd half, I thought it was important to put over the principal reasons for corking. Is it possible to work on the language to produce a compromise? Jmackaerospace 13:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to start talking about how it's one giant vehicle, that really needs to be cited. Because at most, it should say, "Bike advocate X claims that..." As far as the bit about "fear of motor vehicles being embedded." That's a clear POV statement, in my opinion. "interrupted" conveys the exact same message without using emotion or indicating wrongdoing on either party. -Chunky Rice 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been about 3 weeks with no citation forthcoming. I'm reverting to the prior version. -Chunky Rice 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bennett Hall addition

I rewrote/cleaned up a recent addition by Bennett Hall regarding his own 1997 SFCM experiences. The one source given did not support a number of assertions, so I removed them. I think other sources are needed, but I have been unable to find good sources. This is the only newspaper source I can find, and it doesn't say much. Doctormatt 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat skeptical about its inclusion at all. It's not about Critical Mass, really. It happened during a Critical Mass event, but as far as I can tell has very little to do with the event itself. -Chunky Rice 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the event does give some indication of the attitude of the SFPD toward CM at that time: that they were willing to use violence against bystanders to cover up their actions against CM participants. I think it is reasonable to have such information in a "conflict with authorities" section. More/better sources would really be nice to have, though. Doctormatt 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cover up? There's no evidence of a cover up, even in the source cited. -Chunky Rice 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "cover up" is the wrong phrase. The SFPD was apparently willing to use violence to stop a photographer from photographing SFPD actions against CM participants (thus, "covering up" their actions by preventing photographic recording of their occurence). That the SFPD were willing to do this speaks to the SFPD's attitude toward CM at the time. Doctormatt 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't look at the source right now, but does it actually say that he was taking pictures of SFPD actions? I don't recall reading that. -Chunky Rice 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "A police officer stopped a female cyclist at random and began writing her a ticket and berating her though she had committed no offense. Hall, a professional photographer, had his camera with him and began taking pictures of this scene." Doctormatt 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That should be the emphasis of the inclusion then. Right now, it's all about Hall without any mention of that. And there's still no point in talking about the other unnamed person. -Chunky Rice 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unnamed? His name is Eugene Hill - it's in the article and on the sourced web page. The article says "Hill's actions were intended to preserve the photographic evidence of police misconduct that Hill believed were in the camera.." This does address this "emphasis", as does the sentence "Hall claimed the action was to conceal the crime of assault against him and to remove him from a vantage point that may have allowed him to take photographs that would have incriminated the police." Doctormatt 18:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I mentioned that I can't look at the source right now. Regardless, the inclusion of the information in this article should focus on Critical Mass and potential policy activity regarding them. Right now, none of the stuff you are quoting at me is included. I'll put it in myself later, but I figured since you have access to the source, you could do it. It doesn't say what the police might be incriminated in doing. I assumed it was their activity towards this person. It should be specific. I don't really understand why you're upset at this, since at this point I'm asking for information regarding police misconduct to be included. -Chunky Rice 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not upset. Man, I don't know what's going on. You say "none of the stuff you are quoting at me is included" but I copy-and-pasted both quotes directly from this WP article. I'm confused. I assume if you have access to this talk page, you have access to the article - is that true? It's just the cited source that you can't get to? Why is that, may I ask? I'll do what I can to make the inclusion more specific, but I've run out of time to do that right this second: I'll work on it in a few hours. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The part about the intitial incident between the police and the biker that you quoted ("A police officer stopped a female cyclist at random and began writing her a ticket and berating her though she had committed no offense. Hall, a professional photographer, had his camera with him and began taking pictures of this scene." ) is not included. At least, I don't think it is. I just read it again and don't see it. That's what I think should be the focus. That event and then the subsequent incidnet. Right now, it's totally unclear as to relevance, in my opinion. -Chunky Rice 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, my office has that brasscheck site blocked for some reason, so that's why I can't look at the cited source. I do have access to the Critical Mass wikipedia page, obviously. I just didn't want to edit the paragraph without referring to that source. I can do so later, when I get home, if you don't have time. -Chunky Rice 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page ownership concerns

I've been looking at the history on this page and I believe there are some issues with some editors taking ownership of the page. I'm not going to name these editors but I am going to respectfully ask anyone who may edit this page on a regular basis read through the article on page ownership found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Thank you -- 71.236.147.130 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

SF Bicycle Coalition comment

An anonynous editor removed the sentence "Though it does not condone incidents of violence and rudeness, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition credits Critical Mass with spotlighting bicycle issues and aiding their efforts in advocating for cyclists." from the "conflicts with authorities" section, claiming that the citations supplied as insufficient. There were two citations given. The Rachel Gordon source I agree is insufficient. However, the Joe Garofoli one contains this quote:

Critical Mass has definitely brought attention to bicycle issues, and we wouldn't have been able to do it without them.

— said Leah Shahun, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

This seems to me to support the sentence, so I put the sentence back in. If someone disagrees, can someone please explain here why? Thanks. Doctormatt 01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put that sentence and both cites in. I don't recall my thought process exactly, but I thought the second article was just a good source to show the role of Critical Mass in bike advocacy in SF, in general. I don't really care if it gets removed, though I don't think it was inappropriate. -Chunky Rice 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

New LAtimes article

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-criticalmass12aug12,1,7129852.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true

Mainly talks about the belligerent attitude of the critical mass riders 198.6.46.11 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-cycling image

Unless someone can show a citation of how this image is affiliated with Critical Mass, I don't see why it shoudl be included in the article. -Chunky Rice 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There will be no citation. There are far more points of view involved than just anarcho-oid beliefs. Binksternet 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a citation for this either. It should be removed unless it can be validated. I've participated in quite a few critical masses myself, and have yet to see this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a bit late to the party. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

bunch of group think BS

Critical Mass participants are required to lead their own event, since there is no formal leadership. In order to moderate the flow of the group, riders sometimes use a tactic known as "corking", which involves blocking traffic from side roads

uhh what? if you got a bunch of people corking side roads, calling for 'solidarity', forming 'core groups of social networks' to 'monitor bicycling needs', editing this page, THATS LEADERSHIP. maybe you dont think its 'leadership' because you arent 'forcing anyone' to do anything. but you sure as hell are encouraging, cajoling, and in every sense, using peer pressure during rides, calling people "uncool", basically, intimidating people to be either 'with you' or 'against you'. etc etc etc etc, and most of all, this is the same nonsense business-speak that the 'evil corporations' use. you want to start a revolutoin? start by speaking plain english and stop using doublespeak and stop talking around issues and stop spewing endless tirades about how wonderful you are and how evil your 'enemy' is.

whoever wrote the above statements obviously has some personal issues dealing with radicals in their own life, and those statements are useless. you go from speaking about some issue you have about "leadership" to slamming people for using "doublespeak", a clear attack on some radicals that you have a problem with. there is no place for that here. there IS no formal leadership, and people that cork or call for solidarity are NOT leading- that implies that the persuasion of others only serves the interests of the supposed "leader". corking serves the interests of the whole, and any riders that don't feel it neccessary to "follow" have every right not to. go join an anarchist or radical forum and post your personal rants about it there. save any true constructive work for here. Psychowontfindme (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)