Talk:James Dyson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

James Dyson is not Sir James dyson

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is the second time I have removed 'Sir' from this article. James Dyson has a CBE not a KBE. Only people with a KBE are addressed as Sir.

James Dyson was knighted in the 2007 New Year's Honours...

"Knights Bachelor - James Dyson founder and chairman, Dyson, services to business"

"Knighthood for Dyson"

Strictly speaking, until the completion of the award ceremony, either by the Queen or an appointed deputy, James Dyson can't officially use the title "Sir" nor "KBE". So, strictly speaking he should not be referrred to in this article as carrying that title. The press also repeatedly get it wrong time and again and this argument also rears its head on Wikipedia just about every time an award is made! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M100 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The 'rule' of not using the title & postnominals until after they have been conferred at an investiture was abolished in 1971; the modern convention permits useage of the prefix and appropriate letters as soon as the announcement has been made Official by publication in the "London Gazette".

Other

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the clause "although this is tempered by the new jobs in Malaysia" because I think it violates NPOV -- it sounds like apologism for Dyson. But if anyone disagrees with me, feel free to change it back. Brainhell 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

5172 prototypes

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The 5172 prototypes, even taken over an extendezShnbwrhd development period of 13 years (1970-1983) is more than one prototype per day. The *only* source for this overhyped statistic is James Dyson himself. Only a fool would believe this to a true numeration of the prototypes. M100 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they could have been working on more than one prototype at once. --Chiklit (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is rubbish, i think it's just an expanse of the word "prototype", and i'm even interested as to whether Dyson ever said this himself, as the only references i could find where newspapers etc, i'm workin on a revision of a large chunk of the article, this includes a direct quote from Dysons autobiography:

Although popular claims that Dyson may have had as many as {\it 5,127} prototypes during the development stage \cite{bbc}\cite{times}\cite{forbes} may be a little exaggerated, he says in his own words that there were nevertheless ``hundreds of prototypes and thousands of modifications\cite{book}

...

Pledger166 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Amway CMS2000

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Amway had a very similar vacuum cleaner in the 1990's, called the CMS2000. Does anyone know whether they stole the idea from James Dyson, was it licensed, or was there some legal loophole? -- Matthew 1130 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Amway brought out a cyclonic vacuum cleaner which copied several of James Dysons ideas, see Against the Odds: An Autobiography by James Dyson, Page 178. I'm not sure of the model but it came out in the late 1980's. A lengthy legal battle followed (more than three years) which was resolved by making Dyson a licencee and keeping the Amway cleaner on the market -SmokeySteve (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inventor of dust-extraction cyclone was.. who?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems to be a household adage that 'Dyson invented the cyclone' - Yet, these devices are used extensively in industry for separating dust and gas. My own (brief) research seems to indicate the existence of (hydro)cyclone-related patents dating back as far as the 1890's, though these may not have covered dust-extraction uses. Does anyone have the lowdown on this? When, and by whom, was the dust-extraction cyclone invented?

(I became interested in this topic when a few years back, I was aksed to design some Flash animations explaining the operation of just such an industrial plant. The question, 'Do you have to pay royalties to Dyson?' inevitably arose. The answer was No.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anteaus (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

bagless vacuum

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dyson isn't even close to inventing the 'first bagless vacuum'. Rexair was selling one in the 1929. I'm removing this. Also "Dyson scientists were determined to create vacuum cleaners with even higher suction. It was discovered that a smaller diameter cyclone gave greater centrifugal force" is spurious. The cut point of a cyclone is simple physics and wasn't discovered by Dyson scientests. This article still reads like a promotional brochure.--Praguestepcihld (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

UK Jobs Created since Manufacturing taken to Malaysia?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article states the following: "Dyson employs more people in the UK than he did before the transfer of manufacturing to Malaysia."

I think this should have a citation or attribution as it's an important piece of information that I was not previously aware of.

--SimonZerafa (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit implausible that Dyson employs more than 800 people in Research & Development in the UK as the article seems to imply.Landroo (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Net worth

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

two net worths are given, one in the info box and one in the introduction, for years 08 and 09. it apparently halved in one year. idk if that's plausible, but just a head's up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.196.221 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This whole article reads like a marketing piece. How's the fact of his father dying on liver cancer relevant? Or why mention _twice_ that he was living off his wife salary when sweating out the design of a revolutionary vacuum for five whole year (I'm exaggerating here obviously, but the tone of the article clearly caries positive POV bias and overall it reads as a very sympathetic piece). I'm sure Mr. Dyson is an interesting person, but this article is not meant to be a subjective biography piece, but merely a _factual_ statement of his life and achievements.

24.87.41.148 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree. it's ridiculous even now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.43.18 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ContraRotator

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I heard the maschine tended to destroy fabrics and was to expansive to produce. Are there any photos and further details?

What about the spat between Which? and Mr. Dyson after the consumer magazine said in 2001 that it was not good value for money, although it was complimentary about the machine's cleaning power? There seems to have been even a court ruling... The inet seems to have been cleansed of info on this ...^^ Has anybody good sources on this matter? --Max Dax (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC) he is a very trustworthy man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershey1239- (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn by originator. Keith D (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose that James Dyson Award be merged into James Dyson. I think that the content in the James Dyson Award article can easily be explained in the context of James Dyson, and the James Dyson article is of a reasonable size that the merging of James Dyson Award will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Additionally, none of the information in James Dyson Award is sourced to independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose When the award page is fleshed out, it will contain a list of the winners for each year. That content would not fit well here, where we would expect to see a list of the awards which Dyson himself has won. Warden (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As soon as there are independent reliable sources providing substantial coverage of the awards we'll have something to actually say about the awards. At the moment, we have a description of the current guidelines which seem to have changed substantially over the years. I say "seem to have changed" because the only thing I have to go one is the very wrong description that has been the substance of the article for several years. Do you have substantial coverage we can review? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Added top winners and sources. I agree the page is better standalone which will encourage editors to expand on the list of winners and not worry about having a list too long or out of balance with the rest of the article. Other factors like Categories, infobox information (needed), logo (needed). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It is notable and has enough coverage to merit its own article. The scope of the article itself wouldn't fit the biography as well. Given the clean-up work, I don't think the article resembled what it did when the proposal was submitted. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:42pm • 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal 2

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Consensus was to retain Ballbarrow as separate article. Keri (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Ballbarrow be merged into James Dyson. I think that the content in the ballbarrow article can easily be explained in the context of Dyson and the ballbarrow article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I ~~support~~ this suggestion, since the Ballbarrow article is only a stub that appears unlikely to expand very much. Reify-tech (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

(changed to Oppose because the arguments below persuaded me to reverse) Reify-tech (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The product was patented and produced by a company, not Dyson personally, and he lost control of it (see Business Nightmares) As it's a concept and thing, it cannot be readily confined to single BLP. How could we cover production by other parties under this heading? Warden (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware that he had lost control of the company or the invention. Could you add appropriate language to both articles, since this seems to be notable in both? (I was unable to follow the ref you gave, due to Google blocking it for some reason). Reify-tech (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not seeing any indication this is a notable product. I see it merited one brief mention (as an unusual product) when it first came out, but nothing since. Dyson sort of invented it. It might merit a mention here (more than the oblique bit here now). Other than that, that someone makes this thing now doesn't seem to have caught the attention of the press. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Why? It's a notable product in its own right. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I see one brief description in a reliable source. That's not an article, it's a perma-stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

So expand the article. This was a well known product in its day, in the UK, and was widely reported. Just because it's not a US product is no reason to assume that no-one else has heard of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate that this is notable. If you have such sources, please add them to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose There are a number of reliable citations for notability, which I have added to the article. Merging it with a biography of the inventor would diminish the sum of knowledge, and would be contrary to Wikipedia's principles. --gilgongo (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Now Removed merger tag. gilgongo (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction and addition to the number of jobs

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page wrongly states "800 workers redundant in 2002", no reference is provided and as this article from the Financial Times states, the number was actually 560 [1].

The article should also be updated to reflect the new jobs which are to be created in Malmesbury - the £250m expansion announced in January 2014 will create 3,000 jobs and has the backing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne [2]. Planning permission was put in in April [3]. It is widely referenced online that Dyson undertakes its research and development in the UK, and spends over £3m per week developing new technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OJB501 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)