Jump to content

Talk:Falcon Motorcycles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Puffery and plagiarism

[edit]

Please see WP:PEACOCK. We need to avoid using a company's promotional jargon, and copy-pasting phrases from copyrighted publications without quotation marks, such as "helping kick-start the British track-racer movement" and "to understand the true achievement of his motorcycles, one needs to dig deeper than the 80 hour paint and pinstripe job." [23] It's probably WP:COPYVIO and at the very least, it's plagiarism. It's also a dubious claim. Board track racers were a huge hit at the Art of the Motorcycle a decade before the Falcon Bullet. Some evidence would be nice.

The phrase "one of a kind motorcycles" is in place of custom motorcycle is marketing B.S. They take parts from older bikes, fabricate or buy some parts, and put together a different bike. The name for that is custom (motorcycle). It's not magic, and what the independent sources call them.[24][25]

More cleanup is needed. The article currently leans heavily on press releases, TV commercials and blogs that are not reliable, independent sources.

(Much of what I'm complaining about came from this edit, although SPAs representing Falcon have been hard at work on this article since 2008. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

File:Bullet falcon motorcycle drive side.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Bullet falcon motorcycle drive side.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight

[edit]

As the subject of merging Amaryllis Knight into the Falcon Motorcycles page has been controversial, I'd like to point the editors of this article to a recent press release on the Falcon Motorcycles website clarifying Knight's position. The release states that Knight is not in fact the co-founder of Falcon Motorcycles, and that it is not a collaborative effort. I would like to delete Knight from the page, but would like the consensus from Dennis Bratland (talk) or other more experienced editors before doing so. Thanks. The release can be seen here: http://www.falconmotorcycles.com/FOR%20IMMEDIATE%20RELEASE.pdf HaeckelLight (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's such an amazing coincidence how right out of the blue Ian Barry happened to post of a press release that verifies just what you had been saying only day before here on Wikipedia. I guess kindred spirits think so much alike sometimes that they sometimes can seem to be one in the same person. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with adding a sentence to the article that says Ian Barry has issued a press release denying that Falcon Motorcycles is a brand or company, in spite of sources to the contrary.

    Infogroup's ReferenceUSA database lists Falcon Motorcycles as a business owned by Ian Barry and Amaryllis Knight located at 5810 W 3rd St, Los Angeles, phone 323-939-5555. The business is described as having 2 employees in 2011 with a 2011 sales volume of $824,000. IUSA Number 41-751-7676. Website http://shop.falconmotorcycles.com/. Prior to 2011, ReferenceUSA lists Amaryllis Knight as the principal, with sales of $776,000 in 2011, and 5 employees for each of the years 2009, 2010, 2011. A different address is given for Knight, 2149 Bay St, Los Angeles, phone 213-955-0007. ReferenceUSA has tagged the Falcon Motorcycle entries as "Verified", which, it says, means the "records have been through our most stringent compilation processes, including phone verification. These records make up our main business file."

    So now Ian Barry is sending out press releases denying that Falcon Motorcycles is a company, yet we have a high-quality source that says otherwise, and numerous articles about them that clearly say it is a company or business, and a brand. None of the past articles mention this odd notion that it is "not a company or a brand but an idea."

    Here's thing. The Wikipedia article Falcon Motorcycles is not Ian Barry's personal web page. He has his own web site where he can say whatever weird shit he wants to say. Wikipedia belongs to Wikipedia, and the policy is here is to report what third party sources tell is. Articles are verifiable. We avoid primary sources like this strange press release in favor of secondary sources. Even if the "truth" is on the side of Ian Barry's personal web site, because verifiability, not truth is what matters here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK is a lovely principle. If something looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck then it probably is. What I'm seeing here is the biggest fucking duck of my life, and it's a duck that looks suspiciously like a falcon. Quack quack. I think a post to WP:COIN is imminent. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am a fan of Falcon and have been following their story. I know them and am interested in the correct story being out there. That doesn't make me a conflict of interest though? If I am giving neutral information with 3rd party links? Please explain. I'd like to be of service to this article, not damage it's integrity. If I am doing it a disservice or need to edit it differently, please explain how. Thanks 76.93.62.112 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if you are a fan, an employee, the owner of the shop next door or the person himself. The reality is that here on Wikipedia yours is considered a "single purpose account" - that is; you are interested in this topic and nothing else. There are plenty of editors (some very experienced ones) who would be considered close to SPAs but their purpose is so broad that it isn't an issue (like editors who generally edit only medicine-related topics or even motorcycle-related topics). But your "area of interest" is so narrow (one company and it's founders / employees / owners / whatever-they-are) that most experienced editors will strongly suspect WP:COI is involved. If you want to develop as an editor, try editing in areas where you don't have a personal (or very close) knowledge of the subject. Claiming you have no conflict of interest while a subject "just happens" to publish material which 1. contradicts available sources, and 2. "confirms" your arguments, strongly suggests either COI, a close personal relationship (still considered COI) or some other off-Wikipedia skulduggery which is never appreciated.
It doesn't help that each of the articles in question has a history of WP:COI editing - a number of different usernames all with the same uncanny interest in the same small handful of articles. When the same person edits with multiple accounts we call that sock-puppetry - it also has a "group of friends" equivalent referred to as "meat puppetry". It may very well be that you are a different person to all of the carbon-copy, Falcon-obsessed SPAs that came before you. But editing exactly the same way as them in the same topic area as them is not a good way to prove it.
Editing from a neutral point of view is a great start and using third party sources (which a press release from the company wouldn't be anyway) is important. But neither of these mitigate a conflict of interest and "knowing them" or "being a fan" can still be considered a conflict of interest if they impact on your editing.
I would strongly suggest you either take a step back, register a username (or make sure to use one you already have) and edit elsewhere for a while, or, declare a COI and make suggestions here for improving the article rather than editing the article yourself. There are plenty of editors with conflicts of interest who contribute productively every day. Stalwart111 01:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Stalwart|111 I started editing recently and decided to start with this article and it's subjects. It has only been a week that is why my subjects are so narrow. I don't see that that is evidence of me being a COI. I hope you agree. The subject published material a few weeks before I started editing, that is actually what made me interested in editing. Again though, I don't see that as evidence of being a COI. I understand the concerns of wikipedia editors, but I don't belong with those concerns, I'm just a newbie figuring my way around and focusing on something that seems to have cased a lot of change of pages and undos etc. Hopefully I'll learn to follow the rules so that that doesn't happen! Dennis Bratland please can you show us the link to Infogroup's Reference USA database page? I am unable to find any of the information you have mentioned above. If it is a private page that the public can't see, then is that considered verifiable information? I'd like to know how to cite information like that correctly. HaeckelLight (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's verifiability policy doesn't require sources to be online at all, and if they are online they aren't required to be free. See WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL. I have access to ReferenceUSA with my King County and Seattle Library card, and most anyone can do the same through their library locator. Failing that, try the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

Per WP:OBVIOUS, we need to state in the lead that Falcon Motorcycles is a brand and a company. All Wikipedia articles need to state in plain English, in the first sentence, X is a Y. You don't pussyfoot around what the thing is. Barry can call it an "idea" if it floats his boat, but we call things what they are. They may or may not be a defunct brand or company; that can be left unexplained and let the weird press release speak for itself. Sounds like they burned through all their capital, laid off their staff, and used this "it's an idea" thing as a fig leaf to safe face. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the income information you gave from Reference USA, it is doubtful they burned through their capital? I thought we weren't meant to be making non-neutral assumptions on here, which is what that sounds like you're making. I'm still trying to get my bearings, thanks for explaining WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL I now understand. HaeckelLight (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said leave it unexplained. We know as of 2011 at least, that Falcon Motorcycles was a company and a brand. What became of Falcon Motorcycles after that is unclear. Leave it at whatever our last good source said and update it at some future date when a good source comes along and tells us clearly if the company is either defunct or is a going concern. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. HaeckelLight (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So to go back to your earlier statement saying "I am a fan of Falcon.... I know them and am interested in the correct story being out there. " Are you being 100% honest with us? How is it you get photographs inside the workshop? How closely do you know them? Do you work for them, are you employed by them, are you one of them? Are you being paid for your contributions? You will see that bullshit will out, which is why the Knight and Barry articles have already being deleted in the past week. Right now I'm still seeing a big fat quacking duck and nothing in the past 24 hours has persuaded me otherwise. It looks like the other editors on this page feel the same way. The duck test means that even if we can't prove you have a conflict of interest, if your contributions indicate that you do have one then that is sufficient to take some sort of corrective course of action. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have visited their workshops three times in the past two years and took photographs each time. I have also visited the shops of other LA builders. I know them socially. I am not being paid. If I were, don't you think I'd be slightly better at editing than this! Everything I do pretty much generates your anger and you undo it! HaeckelLight (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BB, if I may. HL, you might be surprised at the very poor quality of some of the paid editing here. My experience is that it's often the realm of the otherwise unemployable. WP:AGF suggests we should take you on your word and accept your story. But again, being a big fan (if it impacts on your editing) can still be considered a COI. If I were President of the Rick Astley Fan Club, would it be appropriate for me to edit Astley's article? Probably not. You've added your photos and info. Perhaps it's best to leave maintaining the article to others. Perhaps work on articles for the other shops you have visited. If nothing else, creating articles for their competitors would help to establish you don't have a commercial COI in this particular subject. A classic case of actions speaking louder than words. Stalwart111 12:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand what you are saying. The shops I have visited are Sunrise Cycles, Glory Sales and Service and other garage builders here in LA. I would like to start articles about them too, but unfortunately they don't have verifiable sources of information about them, except for on motorcycle blogs etc. That's why I started with Falcon. Please could you let me know whether specialist forums and blogs can be considered verifiable and I will start these articles? From what I have read so far I don't think they are. HaeckelLight (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I see that a user has uploaded a logo for the company, but am unable to find the source of this logo on the falcon motorcycles website as the logo date suggests. I can't find the logo elsewhere either, or any source that shows that it is the logo of the company. What do we do in a case such as this? Doesn't seem right to keep an unconfirmed logo on the article page. HaeckelLight (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you didn't look very far. I found it here, and as a watermark on all the photos here, and at the end of one of the company's own youtube videos here. Do you need any more? (b.t.w. You forgot to login.) --Biker Biker (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential source

[edit]

Stumbled on this magazine which includes a feature on Falcon. Might be worth adding some stuff if someone can access a copy. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Falcon Motorcycles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Falcon_Motorcycles&oldid=1201904985"