Talk:Bombardier

Bombardier has sold his recreational division (including: snowmobile, watercraft, ouboard engines, atv, Rotax engines) last winter 2003. The recreational division is now know as BRP (see www.brp.com).

OK, new article created under Bombardier Recreational Products AlainV 14:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bombardier monorail in Las Vegas

An encyclopedia article is not a consumer review or consumer watchdog. Bombardier has transit systems or major transit system components in hundreds of cities around the globe. If everybody who went through some problesm with Bombardier transit systems (or Bombardier airplanes) posted a paragraph here it would become a consumer's report. The paragraph previously posted on the Bombardier monorail operations in Las Vegas duplicated exactly a paragraph already existing in the Las Vegas monorail article. It is a concern specific to that monorail system. If there were other issues with other Bombardier monorail installations around the globe or other present or past issues with some other Bombardier transport systems then it would make sense to make a paragraph summing them up and then putting in half a phrase or a phrase on the issues with the Bombardier monorail in Las Vegas. --AlainV 21:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop censoring this article

I understand that you are from Montreal and have some kind of loyalty to Bombardier, and that is great. But Wikipedia has a strong policy of neutrality, and you do not have the right to censor articles to impose your own personal views of the company on everyone else.

Let me give you an example. Die-hard Michael Jackson fans probably don't want to see allegations of sexual abuse in his article. But guess what? It is a major news story, and - true or not - people who want a rounded, unbiased view of Mr. Jackson deserve to hear every publicly known fact about him.

Now, much as when people hear the name "Michael Jackson", the first thing that comes to mind is "sexual abuse"; the same is true, in the western US, of Bombardier. When people hear this name, they immediately think of the malfunctioning monorail system. Therefore, especially at a time when this story is actively in the news, the Bombardier page deserves some kind of mention of the story.

I don't know how things are in Canada but here in the United States we have a strong history of free speech, it's one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen; and most Americans agree that it is a right that should be extended to all citizens of the world. You may like Bombardier, and you certainly have the right to defend any kind of allegations against it. But you do not have the right to censor such a story from the page. This is a major news story here. It's created quite a controversy, and here in Las Vegas, when people hear the name "Bombardier" they immediately think of the scandal. It involved hundreds of millions of dollars, and therefore is important enough to warrant a small paragraph on the page.

You are more then welcome to research the issue, and make the case for Bombardier in the article, but again, you do not have the right to censor it. I am adding the paragraph for a third time, and if you remove it again, I will have no choice but to report this censorship to the Wikipedia authorities.

I made a summary of the paragraph you re-inserted. I was hoping that you would do it yourself since you seem to know the topic well. Every transit sytem has its "teething" problems, and instead of hiding or trying to hide them as you seem to think I was trying to do, I was in fact making it easier for everybody to see them. If you take the trouble of going to the page histories of this article and the Las Vegas you will discover that I was the one who placed hyperlinks between them. I noticed that while you have made several additions to the Las Vegas monorail article you did not mention once that the Bombardier monorail system in Disneyworld has known flawless operations for decades, taking millions of adults and children from point A to point B in complete safety. You have added only negative elements. And you have never provided context. Do you consider that unbiased? Is it neutral to report only the disasters and not report the possible causes that experts have offered in the press?--AlainV 03:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)