Talk:Belstaff

Real motorcycle jackets
WTF is up with Belstaff? I'm looking for a Discovery jacket, but I can't find any online retailers that aren't some hokey chick fashion outlet?! Looks like I'll have to (over)pay for an Aerostich Darien to find something that comes close to fitting properly...


 * Except for special orders for Ewan and Charley, Belstaff now appears to be a fashion label and not really in Category:Motorcycle safety gear manufacturers anymore. See British Motorcycle Gear. AndroidCat (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps the category needs to have the word "safety" removed and just be a collection of motorcycle gear. Lots of gear now offers very little in the way of safety.  There are ultra lightweight mesh boots and gloves which are more to keep pebbles off you and help you work the controls than protect you in a crash.  And of course many fashion jackets are worn every day by real riders who don't place a high priority on that kind of thing; after all many riders won't even wear a helmet. And then you have whole categories of gear that are for keeping you warm, cool, or dry, and not for safety at all, like rain gear and evaporative cooling vests.  It belongs, but it isn't "safety" gear. My point is that WP shouldn't take sides in any debates on what constitutes "real" motorcycle gear. Rather, if it's worn primarily on a bike and it is notable, put it in the motorcycle gear category.--Dbratland (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Just because someone can wear it while riding, doesn't make it motorcycle safety gear. (And flip-flops and a t-shirt aren't even "motorcycle gear", no matter how popular with squids.) There are a number of standards for helmets and armor where there's no debate involved. Forgive me, but this seems to be trying to stretch the category to continue to include Belstaff even though they've changed their ownership, focus and product line. If you'd like a separate category for "Stuff people wear while riding on a motorcycle", you can give it a try. AndroidCat (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Broadening the category to include uncertified gear gives readers a complete picture of what riders are wearing, or did wear in the past. To make the WP category identical with the list of certified gear is highly arbitrary on the part of WP editors, especially when the standards and coverage for DOT, Snell, and CE are so different from one another.  And to say there is no debate involved?  This is demonstrably false; controversy has stormed around safety standards since the day they were conceived.  The article on Snell Memorial Foundation briefly covers one of those incidents.  The contradictions between the Snell and DOT standard -- see Conflicts of Contemporary Motorcycle Helmet Standards -- are a whole other battle.  And that doesn't even touch the criticisms by those who are opposed to helmet laws and claim they are dangerous.  To treat these as if they are settled issues where everyone agrees violates NPOV.  Much better to include what exists and is notable and state the fact that it does or doesn't comply with particular standards. I do realize many authorities have strong opinions about what is proper motorcycle gear and what isn't, but we can verify from many sources that those opinions aren't shared by everyone. And then there is India, China, and the rest of Asia where more than two thirds of the world's rider's ride, where the US/European ideas of safety gear are unknown.  It's very biased to talk about this as if the entire world has a selection of CE certified gear to choose from and they're getting their riding advice from the MSF and David Hough.--Dbratland (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. My area of the world isn't US/European, and there's no MSF here. While there are quite complex and expert arguments over particular safety standards, to say that this invalidates any consideration of standards seems to be like entirely discarding the theory of evolution because there are complex and expert arguments over various models of evolution. My feeling is that safety gear should either comply with some standard or make a good argument that while it doesn't, that it is designed with safety in mind and why it varies from a particular standard in that part of the world. AndroidCat (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that Category:Motorcycle safety gear and Category:Motorcycle gear can both exist. And hopefully it's obvious that safety gear is a subset of gear.  I'll probably go ahead and create Category:Motorcycle gear in the near future and put  Category:Motorcycle safety gear under it, unless there are objections.--Dbratland (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See also: Talk:Motorcycle_safety_clothing--Dbratland (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give my Belstaff jacket a good stern talking to and tell it that despite it being fitted with CE approved armour in the back, shoulders and elbows, and it being constructed from heavy duty Cordura and 3M Scotchlite reflective patches; that it is a motorcycle jacket NOT a motorcycle safety jacket. Perhaps people perceive that Belstaff right now manufactures motorcycle gear, but for many many years it was one of the market leaders in the manufacture of motorcycle safety gear and many of us still wear its products. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. No question that your jacket is motorcycle safety gear, but you can't buy it from Belstaff any more. They no longer make anything with the design and intent of being motorcycle safety gear, but the existing Belstaff gear that people are still wearing is the reason that I haven't already removed that category. AndroidCat (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Belstaff logo.png
Image:Belstaff logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In the movies (aka In Popular Culture) section
I didn't look to see that the list of movie cameos had already been deleted and reverted once today, or I wouldn't have re-deleted it without discussion.

So what's so great about this list of movie appearances. It's product placement. You pay your money, they put your product in a movie. Same as buying ads. That does not equate to notability, in my mind. Neither does even this NYT fashion article. It's totally uncritical, and unjournalistic. It is selling the company's marketing message verbatim, without questioning basic facts, like how much did Belstaff pay to get their jackets in all those movies.

If I knew of some objective reporting on this topic I could see a reason to include it. Maybe I don't get it and I need to be enlightened.--Dbratland (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, see WP:IPC and Handling trivia which I think is most relevant here.--Dbratland (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think the NYT Style article is worth mentioning- not everything in the NYT article is worth mentioning, but the fact that a moto jacket is covered by something as credible as the NYT is relevant. Having a big laundry list of movies? No, that isn't. tedder (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A moto-style jacket, surely. Even overlooking modern details like CE armor, real moto jackets are made with a considerably different grade of leather and stitching than fashion jackets. AndroidCat (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's about Belstaff, and it's verifiable/reliable. tedder (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At least we all agree that the list of movies should be deleted, something I also did to a much better written list back in May this year. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice yet again how the "movies" connection has been removed/deleted by someone who apparently appears to be a biking enthusiast. Not exactly what I call independent. The movie connection section adds to the article, it provides greater ENCYCLOPEDIC knowledge and correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Wikipedia an Encyclopedia ?! I used a credible official source and as far as I know the movie studios actually went TO Belstaff and not the other way round as you imply. I really can't be bothered anymore to carry on my argument as I've better things to do than trawling round the web reversing entries which is all I can see you doing. Seeourbee —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC).


 * If you feel this consensus is wrong, please find sources to indicate how encyclopedic the references to a zillion movies actually is. "encyclopedic" knowledge doesn't mean that every little thing should be included. tedder (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Popular Culture makes some good points as to why this kind of information should be kept -- somewhere. But the basic principle of requiring sources remains.  And a context-free list of movies and movie stars is not encyclopedic, and not what the pop culture project supports.  I can see bringing this list to come back in another form, either here or on a separate page, but it needs context.  Just how did this company get chosen for these movies?  Did they pay or not?  And is the list even extraordinary?  Maybe there's ten other apparel makers whose products who have been in many more movies than Belstaff, and it's all just marketing hype.  But the list should not come back until it has sources and context; it's too misleading.--Dbratland (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I just made a pretty rigorous cleanup to address the advertising-like tone that the article was flagged for. Removed references to specific models and product lines without indication of notability, promotion of the brand, etc. and a questionable external external link related to promotion at the G8 event. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Belstaff. 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/20120503053907/http://labeluxgroup.com:80/brands-belstaff.php to http://labeluxgroup.com/brands-belstaff.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)