Talk:Roper steam velocipede

Replicas by William “Wild Bill” Eggers

• http://www.bikeexif.com/indian-4-motorcycle
• http://www.ride-ct.com/?p=3925
• http://daimlermotorcycle.com/

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

color photo?

A photo from one of the surviving examples would be good -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'll upload a photo from the Las Vegas RM auction in Jan.2012, of the 1886 Roper steam velocipede. Vintagent (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinions about what is a true motorcycle

I reverted the unsourced opinions in this edit and kept the cited change regarding ownership of the auctioned motorcycle. I agree it's a mistake to call the Reitwagen the first motorcycle, but the vast majority of sources do just that, and we should faithfully report the fact that most sources think that. Fortunately, we can cite Alan Girdler and Glynn Kerr, who have done a thorough job of filking the flawed arguments that the mainstream sources put forth about the Reitwagen and the steam cycles.

To me this article does the reader a great service: we inform them what the conventional wisdom is on this subject, and we provide sober facts on where this conventional wisdom starts to break down. We don't tell them they're "wrong" if they want to believe that the only motorcycles are gasoline internal combustion two wheelers. It's enough to walk through the reasons why this thinking paints you in a corner and let readers decide what they want to think.

The theory that electric and diesels have changed the public's perception is quite good, and it's one I've hinted at before, but Wikipedia doesn't publish original research or synthesis. We need an independent source if this is to be included. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• It seems too much emphasis is placed on the OED definition which includes the unfortunate line 'internal combustion.' This is clearly an outdated definition in the 21st Century, as noted with the rapid rise of electric motorcycles. Today I inserted the Encyclopedia Britannica definition, "any two-wheeled or, less commonly, three-wheeled motor vehicle, usually propelled by an internal-combustion engine," which neatly solves that odd dilemma. Deleting the OED definition entirely seems like an even better idea, since it is currently incorrect.

  Regarding the experts quoted; I have spoken with Kevin Cameron on the subject, and he is firm in his opinion that 'steam cycles' are not 'motorcycles'. But he seems to be a voice of one, post-'The Art of the Motorcycle' exhibit at the Guggenheim, which prominently featured the Perraux steam velocipede as the 'first motorcycle'. (As an aside, I was told by curator Ultain Guilfoyle that the Smithsonian wanted a $1M cash bond to display the Roper!). Vintagent (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm in (almost) complete agreement. The whole reason I created Roper steam velocipede and Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede and wrote a section Daimler Reitwagen questioning that it was the first motorcycle was to bring to light all the experts who say the Roper or Michaux-Perreaux was the first. I've changed Motorcycle, Motorcycle history, and Motorcycle engine to include steam, and removed the motorcycle from List of German inventions and discoveries more than once. But putting these facts out there is as far as we ought to take this. Doing more is POV pushing, a violation of Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality.

    I could have just put my opinions in the articles and left it at that, but somebody else would have reverted it. What's the point?

    So I did my best to present the mainstream view that Daimler is the "father of the motorcycle" as fairly as I could, and to emphasize that the Reitwagen is the direct ancestor of all internal combustion vehicles on land, sea, and air, even it it's not the first motorcycle. Our goal here isn't to answer the question "What was the first motorcycle?" It's to answer the question "What do mainstream sources say was the first motorcycle?" This is discussed more in Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.

    The OED entry doesn't stand alone; it's combined with four other citations, and I could pile on more. Even Brittanica leans toward internal combustion. You're probably right that the modern view is shifting in favor of the steam cycles, but we need to show that with citations, not just say it. The articles I have by Glynn Kerr (2008) and Alan Girdler (1998), which directly argue against the Reitwagen, make clear that the dominant view is still with the Reitwagen. If you can cite more published experts who say otherwise, that's all we need. Your personal observations are invaluable but we can't deliver them straight from you to Wikipedia; we need them to be in a fact-checked, edited third party publication first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)