Talk:Flying Pigeon

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

NPOV

Keithontheearth has the right idea (below), but this article seems too far gone for simple edits. It reads like the company's PR department wrote it. Needs a complete rewrite to not be an advertisement.

Go for it! --Keithonearth (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

split

The classic iconic bicycle should have its own article. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

article tone

This article is beautifully written, but it could be more encyclopedic. I'm going to try to make it less lyrical without taking away from it's quality. Help/input is welcome.--Keithonearth (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a try at making it more encyclopedic. I'll look at it again in a bit with fresh eyes.--Keithonearth (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

technical information

I've corrected some of the technical information. It is mostly small stuff, but it is important to get it right. I don't know who the original author is, but some of the material looks like it was copied directly from the company's website.

hartleymartin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.51.179 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Their own website claims only 75 million built, not 500 million

www.flying-pigeon.eu After more than 75 million bicycles manufactured, Flying Pigeon is at the forefront of the whole bicycle phenomenon in the People’s Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.49.127 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's obviously a typo -- they probably meant 750 million as of 2013. 75 million is nothing -- that's barely more than the number of Honda Super Cubs made, and the same flying-pigeon.eu site affirms the bicycle is the most common vehicle on Earth. Two ohter sources that verify the 500 million estimate: [1][2]. Also, I'll fix the .eu website-- the main site should be the English .cn site. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flying Pigeon. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303194053/http://world.honda.com/news/2008/c080521Cub-Series/ to http://world.honda.com/news/2008/c080521Cub-Series/

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) 01:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"More than 500 million Flying Pigeon PA-02 bicycles have been made since 1950, more, as of 2007, than any other model of vehicle."

Are there any sources other that the Chinese government (or publications that got their information by asking the Chinese government) that can confirm this number? China, especially during the Chairman Mao era, has a rather spotty record when it comes to accurately reporting industrial output. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are several secondary sources, including those cited in the article: [3][4][5][6]. If we were using the Chinese government as a primary source, this might be different, but here we are relying on secondary sources considered reliable and fact-checked. No doubt they were given this data by China, but we presume a WP:secondary source can be trusted to decide whether or not to treat this statistic as a fact or put scare quotes around it. What you're suggesting is we second-guess ostensibly reliable sources based solely on our own opinions about the Chinese government, and then conduct our own original research to challenge the secondary sources.

If you had a secondary source that challenges this themselves, and makes some argument for why there really weren't 1 billion made or 500 million in service, then we'd be obliged to point out that it is disputed. But as far as I know, it is undisputed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The grammar isn't very good, and it would be much better if that sentence mentioned the second-most-produced bicycle, otherwise we're going to have people arguing whether e.g. skateboards and shoes are vehicles. Dennis, you obviously have a thing for bikes. What's the second-most-produced bicycle? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A shoe is not a machine that transports people or cargo. Neither is a sock. Nobody refers to shoes as vehicles. Is there any reason to think any skateboard model was made in volumes approaching half a billion units? That sounds implausible and I've never heard mention of such a thing.

And sources are clear that it is produced more than any other vehicle, meaning cars, motorcycles, boats, planes, etc. I mostly have a thing for sources. Sources are where I got all this hoopla about the Flying Pigeon. If any sources had given consideration to skateboards, or whatever the second most produced bike is, I'd include it. The key is that I'm not choosing what to include here based on what strikes my fancy. It's what the sources find significant. Anyway, I'd guess that there are probably 20 models tied for a distant, distant second. The fact that a single model was produced for so long is a peculiar fact of Chinese history. No other bicycle manufacturer would go on for decades making the exact same model in that way. Only the Honda Super Cub comes close, and it's an order of magnitude fewer. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Is a horse a vehicle? I don't think so, but according to one state court of appeals it is.[7] Can a vehicle be a vehicle if it does not carry a human? Our Unmanned aerial vehicle article and multiple sources say it can. Is a wheelchair a vehicle?

Is a cable car or an aerial tramway gondola or a sailboat or a soapbox derby car or a manned unpowered helium balloon a vehicle, or does the vehicle have to carry an onboard power source? If a UAV can be a a vehicle without carrying a human, and a soap box derby car can be a vehicle without any onboard power source, can a hot wheels car be a vehicle? Mattel has made 6 billion of them - 12 times as many as Flying Pigeon.

How about rickshaws? Do we not count a vehicle if a bunch of different sources make it but it is the same basic design? In the 1940s 100,000 men pulled rickshaws in Shanghai alone. Dugout canoes are pretty much all the same, but are made by different people. Do we count them all together? Do we count railroad cars or entire trains?

I think that we could get by with saying that it is the most manufactured human carrying vehicle. That would rule out most of the edge cases. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're inventing and staging your own novel arguments, you against our sources. Sources say the Flying Pigeon is the most produced model of vehicle ever. Do you have sources saying no, it's a horse? A source saying no, it's a gondola? A rickshaw? No? "Do we not count a vehicle..." Do WE count? No, WE aren't counting anything. Our sources count. We follow what our sources tell us. Wikipedia editors aren't in charge of deciding what is or isn't a vehicle. That's up to reliable sources to tell us. Here's what we can get by with saying: what our sources say. We don't need to make up our own ideas for what is what. All we have to do is read the sources, and summarize them faithfully. Until you cite a source that actually contradicts any of the ones given here, you're wasting everyone's time with off-topic forum debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Brake blocks

Brake blocks is the correct term used in UK. I found some in the shed a few days ago, hard (black) and soft (red), the latter inserted into the shoes, IIRC. I was looking for tap washers (without success); I'll try to find again and upload to Commons as don't seem to be any historical types there Category:Bicycle brake pads. I gave away all (or most!) of my 1950/60s pedal cycle parts probably 20 years ago to a neighbour who scratch-built whole assemblies created from regular skip-diving (dumpsters) to give to local children.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t able to find any sources that verify this, other than a couple weak references that merely use it as a synonym for brake pad. If we do have sources for this alternate terminology, or that they constitute a distinct type of brake, the article where that information belongs is bicycle brake. Chinese language topics don’t have any special preference for UK English and we don’t have sources saying the Flying Pigeon had unique brakes; only an unusual direct brake linkage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I sold my copy of this probably 15 years ago for around 8GBP. The sixth image show the brakes exactly as I described. Likewise this ebay closed listing, image six confirms what the red were for, and this listing, image four states: "Blocks are made from a secret Campag formula...". It helps knowing what to look for.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't load anything from those links. Ebay listings are pretty borderline with regard to reliability. I feel like if there exists a distinct category of bicycle brakes other than what is currently described in bicycle brake, it ought to be something we can verify easily with multiple reliable sources. We can cite several in depth sources on the Flying Pigeon, and none of them really seem to find the brakes pads (or "blocks") particularly out of the ordinaray.

I'm not at all opposed in principle to writing about this in this article or elsewhere, but unless we have good sources we can cite, I don't see the point. Why would it be so hard to find sources about this topic? The Flying Pigeon might be a China-only product, but China a big important country, located on planet Earth, and the Flying Pigeon is world-famous. Sources must exist, if this is significant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - the images are of pages in a booklet called "Bike Riders Aids" showing a wholesaler's inventory, with editions dating from 1963 to 1975 available on ebay.uk or recent completed listings. The booklet was obtainable from pedal cycle retailers at a small charge back in the day; I didn't think the ebay.co.uk links would be volatile, but you could search ebay.com. Several are showing to me from international sellers listed on ebay.com, with shipping to US.

I've found the blocks (next to me now) not imaged as yet. The black (hard for chromed steel) states Raleigh, Pat App 7926686; a picclick listing states these have a wet-weather leather insert - which it does. The red (for aluminium) carries Fibrax 285 and GB No. 34P (Gerry Burgess, a few Wikipedia and Google mentions). rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a flash of inspiration, remembering Grace's Guide.

• 1913 advert for Suregrip brake blocks
• Fibrax brake blocks (allegedly 1920, 1923 1924)
• Grapholl brake blocks (allegedly 1913)

I see blocks were also used on tramcars and railcars, but that's more in Andy Dingley's area of expertise (not presently active on WP, but is on Commons). When a UK IP using a 100-year old description is reverted within hours based on a modern premise, it could deter a potential new editor. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)