Talk:Husaberg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Husaberg is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Hi folks...
here's annother attempt to add some simple information about the Husaberg bikes without infringe copyrights...
...and without comercial interests...
Thanx...
--Maddel 07:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oppinionated
Way too opinionated imo. Should be entirely ambigous. Words such as "courageous" and "unfortunately" really have no place in an informational article.
Some lines that need serious reworking:
"It is asserted that KTM studied the design of the Husaberg engines to improve its own." Is this factual? Line clearly states "asserted", and without any sort of factual foothold, I think this line should be removed from the article.
"The current KTM slogan, "Ready to Race", was also taken from Husaberg, whose current slogan is now "4 Stroke Force"."
Source?
"It is asserted that the reliability and quality of the engines have clearly improved over the years and is now comparable to that of more established brands, Japanese included."
ENTIRELY OPPINION! Does not belong in this article without some sort of factual backing.
[edit] WHAT THE HECK ?!?!?
Please do not edit this article again.
Yes, KTM bought Husaberg. Why a source? It is an established fact.
Yes, the Husaberg built from 2001 to 2003 broke easily and they are more reliable now. Source? visit Husaberg.org and read comments.
Yes, the slogan used to be "Ready to Race" and now KTM uses it. Husaberg's new slogan is "Four Stroke Force". Visit KTM and Husaberg's official Web site and look on top.
Yes, they lacked funds and they hired a young unknown rider named Joel Smets, as well as a bunch of Swedish riders.
I used the term courageous? Well, they had to be in order to race against teams with 10 to 100 times more funds.
Courageous, because Smets got a World Championship on a Husaberg.
Opinionated the fact that KTM bought Husaberg? The fact that the oil delivery to the head has been changed?
You delete a lot of precious information that was not opinionated and do not need to be given a source since it is very easy to find out by visiting several Web sites.
I also happen to be quite an expert about this brand and I know how these bike crapped all over the place until KTM moved production to Austria.
DO NOT EDIT ANY MORE!!!
--WhiteEcho 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if it's true or not, it shouldn't be in the wiki if you can't prove it.
It's illogical to tell people "They can look for it themselves". That's the whole reason they came to the wiki, for that precise information that they're looking for.
Btw, your flailing with logical fallacy left and right, most notably burden of proof, and Anecdotal Evidence. Wiki is no place for such fallacious claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.132.26 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, guess what... Most of what is written on Wiki is not substantiated. If we were to delete all that is not, then it would shrink to about 20% of its current size.
I have looked for sources for most of my "claims". As a Berg owner, I can tell you than my 2001 was very unreliable and needed a lot of work done to it, while the models done after 2003 are a lot more reliable. I cannot substantiate it, but it is true.
The fact that they are built for racing and not for the regular hobbyist first is true but cannot be proven. The Honda or Suzuki equivalent weigh 20 to 50 more pounds, but they are a lot more reliable. I know, I own Japanese bikes as well.
Now, what is there to prove about the change of slogan? It is a true fact as well and that one is very well substantiated.
On Wiki, people tend to debate about the veracity of facts than about the fact they are not substantiated. You do not go and delete what is not substantiated according to you. You first debate about it or request for quotes and sources rather than barge in, make your negative comment and delete in a matter of seconds what somebody took about an hour to write.
Am I making sense? Or should I provide sources?
--WhiteEcho 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2009 model photo
The photo currently posted (as of 11/10/2007) was provided to me by the owner of said photo, who gave me authorization to use it in this article. Thanks for not deleting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteEcho (talk • contribs) 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
