Talk:Joseph-Armand Bombardier

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

Self taught[edit]

All the sources I have read on Joseph-Armand Bombardier indicate that he was entirely well and self-taught! If he was a doctor I would like to know what kind, at the very least!! AlainV 02:49, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe I'm wrong then. My father told me he was a country doctor who found it hard to make housecalls in the snow so he invented the skiddoo. But then again, my father gets a lot of things confused. Sorry about that. moink 02:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Armand Bombardier[edit]

Dumb, uni-lingual American here. Heard the name of the company founded by Mr. Bombardier pronounced on a national network as "bom-ba-DEER." Is this the correct pronunciation?

umm nope, i am from canada, and its pronounced "bom-bar-DI-ER" some of the times ppl say with with silent R at the end and a strong R at the middle so.. "bom-baR-DI-EE"


The above two statements regarding the pronunciation are NOT accurate. I have read his biography and I am related to Bombardier. Bom‧bar‧dier  [bom-bahr-dyey] Is the correct pronunciation. (I also have a last name of the same origin). The "dier" in French is pronounced "dyey". The alternate pronunciation is [bom-ber-deer]

Hahahahahahaha, coming from a French-Canadian background I couldn't help but laugh at this. Think of the "ier" as 'ee' then 'é', as in Bom - bar - dee - ay. Sandwiches99 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate propaganda[edit]

So... in plain he seems to have been a self-taught engineer who hasn't invented something that wasn't done before - so much for his 'dream' of making the vehicle that floats on snow - but who had the inspiration and the lack of scrupuls to get subventions and merge with companies that were actually making something. And the new and improved company doesn't get a good/innovative rating anywhere I look. Just problems with subventions, bad manufacturing, bad design. I would not doubt if there would be problems with the intelectual piracy as well. 82.240.243.35 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right, they're just part of the Fortune Global 500, but hey, what does that matter, right? As for the man himself, he created innovations, not inventions. He expanded on ideas that already existed in order to tackle the issues in the area he lived in, then expanded THAT into a larger business in order to deal with a larger consumer base and therefore more customers. As for intellectual piracy, what the hell are you talking about? When did Bombardier run into problems regarding intellectual property laws? Sandwiches99 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)hi[reply]


Bombardier[edit]

Just a comment, this page is very hard to read. It is a word wall I guess. I am thinking about adding sections to make it easier to read.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also has Very little information on his personal life--Gordonrox24 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy and pasted this whole page into a user subpage. I will fix it up, then see what people think.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my subpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gordonrox24/Joseph-Armand_Bombardier--Gordonrox24 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion[edit]

I had to Propose this for deletion. I don't have the extra time to clean it up, and nobody else is willing. No references or sources. Maybe once it is gone somebody will care.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we don't delete articles because you don't have time to improve them. And we don't propose deletion of articles on significant historical figures to provoke somebody to care about them. That's called abuse of process. Franamax (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just zealous desperation. No malice is intended, he just didn't know what else to do. - BillCJ (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None at all, but this article IS worthy of deletion if it staying in it's current state. Something has to be done and it seems nobody is willing to do it.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to AFD then or get a book from the library and improve it yourself. It looks fine to me, everything in there is uncontroversial facts which accord well with what I know of Bombardier. It now has references and further reading.
We appreciate your enthusiasm and welcome new editors, but maybe you should put more than 49 mainspace edits under your belt before trying to get articles deleted because you think there's something wrong with them. Reviewing your edits in fact, have you made more than one or two actual contributions to the encyclopedia? I'm not trying to be mean, but you really shouldn't be insisting that other people do things when you're not willing to do them yourself. Franamax (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am not willing to fix it myself, as I said that previously. It also seems that nobody else (Since Decemeber) is willing to add anything constructive either. You should be more open to the fact that not only mainspace edits are important. I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia trying to get an article up and running for a very notable online game. It is userfied, so obviously it is not a mainspace edit. I have very little time to do stuff like clean up this page. One reference for such an important figure in Canadian History is not sufficient.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that Bombardier was an important figure in Canadian history, so proposing a deletion because there are not enough citation is "kind of" disruptive. I added a lot of citations, but even if I agree that this article could be improved (it still can), we can not always take immediately the time to improve an existing article just because someone has put a deletion tag. Hervegirod (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. You can very easily remove the tag, or add the hangon tag and volia, the article is still up and running. I am now very happy with the article. I did not plan to cause all of this trouble, I am happy I put the tag up. Look at the drastic improvements made. I would like to thank everybody that added citations, sections, further reading, and new references very much.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod. From your edit comment, I was thinking about citing you for vandalism through prod abuse. It was clearly inappropriate way to use deletion. Why didn't you just post a message to the various wikiprojects instead? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I fail to see how it was inappropriate, as it was a completely unreferenced or cited article. Is just so happened that by placing the PROD tag, the article got fixed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policy about PROD usage? If not, I suggest you do so, because if you continue using PROD in this manner, someone will ban you sooner or later for deletion template abuse. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the article got fixed is not necessarily because you prodded it, since it came a long time after I deleted the PROD. It's much more likely that the people I informed on the relevant wikiprojects read my notice instead. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is proposing an article with no sources references or any other citations Template abuse? No. It is informing people that an article is not in a good enough state to be allowed on Wikipedia.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, proposing an article for deletion because you can't be bothered to improve it, attempting to force other people to do work on your own five-day timetable (better yet, trying a speedy tag first), tagging articles that other people may not be watching at the moment and getting them automatically deleted - that could well be considered template abuse. The danger is that you are ranging far and wide doing this, damaging the content of the encyclopedia. As I asked you on your talk page Gordonrox, have you ever actually made an edit of your own that improved an article? Franamax (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very naive of you to judge me on one edit. The article is fixed, I have asked for a review to give it a rating.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph-Armand Bombardier. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph-Armand Bombardier. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph-Armand_Bombardier&oldid=1206363918"