Talk:Yamaha Royal Star Venture

Added VentureRider.org rally details for '07 and '09, plus added a picture.

S Bumgardner (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the motorcycle itself.

S Bumgardner (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged things for a more encyclopedic appearance. Added references.

S Bumgardner (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venture Owners' Internet Forum section Comment[edit]

I removed content "and most successful" that was replaced with the edit summary "1. There is NO advertising here. 2. The articles states 'one of' not the only forum. Hence the undo.".

Words of puffery that promote the subject of an article or section like "most successful" is subjective, being an opinion, and is in conflict with several sections of the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular #1, #4, and #5.

The entire section, while possibly having some merit to those of particular interest, is not encyclopedic (a forum for a "small group of about 100 members"), has no actual relevance to the article subject, and is promotional. This means the website would likely be a candidate for inclusion in an "External links" section and not as a section with content being self-referenced.

The words that were removed and most successful are not even in the content of the reference, which makes it original research . Along with other wording from the site such as "largest and friendliest" and "warmly welcomed by some of the nicest people you will ever meet", are promotional and at best is not written from a Neutral point of view.

The second part of the edit summary (#2) does not even make sense. The article states "One of the longest-running and most successful", and this entire sentence is weasel words and considered exceptional claims requiring a reference, particularly when contested such as by removal. Since this is not provided it is self-advertising. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." and the burden for inclusion "lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".

I performed justifiable maintenance that was reverted. My edit summary also included "...wording that is not supported by secondary sources.". The word "secondary" should have been left out but reasoning for removal of content does not need to have every policy and guideline listed. The material removed was not supported and when added back this was not supplied. It is somewhat disheartening to have to add so much content to support a given. I do not know if the section will be contested but I made changes to remove the advertising appearance. Please discuss any changes as this could be seen as edit warring. Otr500 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]