Talk:John Forester (cyclist)
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Cycling||(Rated Stub-class)|
|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view.|
resistance to dedicated bicycle paths?
I'm deleting this statement for being not NPOV and without basis:
- Forrester's outspoken resistance to dedicated bicycle paths ( see Forester Web Site) contributed to the failure of American cities to build bicycle infrastructure that is common in Northern Europe.
The referenced page on Forester's website does not even mention the term "path", so it does not serve as evidence for his alleged "outspoken resistance to dedicated bicycle paths". Even if such information could be referenced, a correlation between it and the "failure" noted is not established either. There are many other factors that are arguably much more significant in why there are no more segregated bicycle facilities in the United States, that have nothing to do with Forester.
Ironically, Forester is currently very busy trying to reverse a series of court decisions in Los Angeles that have found in favor of municipilities treating dedicated bicycle paths as wilderness trails in terms of their responsiblity to keep them maintained and safe up to bikeway standards. The City of L.A. is arguing that bicycle paths are not like roads or sidewalks where the City is liable for accidents caused by improper design or maintenance, but they are like wilderness trails where all users use them at their own risk. Once again, Forester is acting in the true interests of cyclists, while his opponents continue to misunderstand him. --Serge 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- The bicycle paths he oposes are not the common in Europe, they exists but are not common. The common one are more making shortcuts or letting bicycles through cut of streets. (Just now there is a drive in Sweden to allow riding against the one-way direction (signposted so that you and cars now about the permission) where there is enogh space.Seniorsag (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This guy has dedicated his life to opposing cycle-specific infrastructure. The weasel words above imply that this in not the case. Not cool. Also, the statement 'there are no more segregated bicycle facilities in the United States' - what nonsense. There are many of them and large networks in planning or under construction in numerous towns and cities (NY, DC, LA, etc). If you're going to criticise others, maybe try getting some facts right yourself22.214.171.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Bizarre writing style
This is not encyclopedic-standard writing: "Just as his father spent his entire life sneering at the foibles of the plebian middling classes, now John would dedicate his life to returning cycling to the mystic days of his troubled youth. To be continued (October 7, 2007)"
Also there is far too much detail about his personal life and his troubled relationship with his father; mostly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on a cycling advocate. 126.96.36.199 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Dermot
The information I included is accurate, factual, and concerns subjects that Forester himself addresses in his own website. If Forester choses to make himself a limited public figure by addressing a given subject on his website, then to reference that information in this encyclopedia article is appropriate unless you are in a position to prove: 1) it is inaccurate; 2) it is intended to denigrate him on a subject that he has himself has not "put into play," 3) it is libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepperson (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
How about: 4) Mostly completely irrelevant in the context of this encyclopedia entry? You're not writing his unofficial biographry. Tomasrojo 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Tomasrojo
- I don't understand the argument here. To make Wikipedia verifiable, we must reference claims from reliable third-party sources. The whole of the first section does not have a single reference. On this basis alone, it could be removed quite fairly without discussion. Whether the subject decided to put something on his website is irrelevant. His website may be of use as an external link, but not as a source. SeveroTC 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I cut down the introduction. It was extremely long, and used language that was one-sided and somewhat derogatory. It still contains no references.Tomasrojo 13:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced the two missing paragraphs that Tomasrojo vandalized by removing on October 25. I am not writing Foresters unofficial biography, I am writing his official biography. the information is taken from Forester's own bio of his father, which is contained in the citations section below. Thomasrojo no doubt removed the paragraphs because, while not pointed out in the article, the information contradicts biographical information contained in Forester's C.V. In addtion, the introduction of certain biographical chracters is necessary because I have conducted interviews with these persons and they have comments on Forester's life and career which will be added as I go along. As I have previously noted, through his career, Forester has made himself a public figure and thus his life is subject to any scrutiny that is supportable by the facts and is not libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bepperson (talk • contribs) 12:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are two points to be made here: 1) Bold editing is not vandalism, and you should not call it that. 2) A biography runs to hundreds of pages, which is not something this article should aspire to. You are NOT writing his official biography; are you honestly claiming that John Forester or his estate has given you the green light to write this article? In summary, you are writing about "John Forester, Cyclist". His triumphs and failures in the arena of cycling advocacy are all relevant; even some surprising trivia could be included, provided it was kept to a minimum. His extended family is almost completely irrelevant. You also should aspire to write in neutral language. You are signally failing to do this. I can tell from your style of writing that you harbor some resentment towards the man. This is not the place for you to work that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasrojo (talk • contribs) 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to Moonriddengirl for those recent edits. The article contains much the same information now, but with a more neutral style of writing.Tomasrojo 10:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Smith vs. Forester
If his father was a Smith who used Forester only as his literary pseudonym - as our article on C. S. Forester suggests - then why is his son John not known as "John Smith"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)