Talk:Suzuki DR650

I love the DR 650, and i don't agree that "This motorcycle is commonly described as being useful for all types of motorcycling, without being particularly good at any of them". It is particularly good at dual sport motorcycling, which is what the bike is made for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.186.17 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. I created this article, using the KLR650 article as a template. The intro isn't terribly encyclopedic, but that's how it read in the KLR article and, without splitting hairs, those two bikes are categorized and reviewed very similarly. So that's our starting point &mdash; jump in and change things!  Perhaps the KLR article needs attention, too. --Ds13 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research
While I fully appreciate that we tend to wax lyrical about our bikes, Wikipedia is not a fan site, and all statements must be supported by credible sources. I have quite brutally pruned out all of the waffle, original research and weasel worded opinions. It's not my intention to denigrate the bike, and I would welcome the restoration of any and all verifiable praise for it. Rogerborg (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable external links and references needed badly
While I respect the person who, today, deleted the following external link because they saw it as a fansite, it was actually an excellent compilation of information about the DR650 and its history, variations, etc. The site appears to be non-commercial, unbiased -- simply a good resource. But perhaps not reliable, so I understand. Anyways, I leave the link here, so those who may come later might refer to it or find a way to incorporate its contents. DR 650 History  --Ds13 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a collection of scans of Suzuki manuals is quite a resource. Unfortunately, it's copyrighted and linking to it is a violation of WP:ELNEVER. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)