Talk:Early flying machines

message: Strange - why You missed him. He is everywhere, possible in fridge too :-), but without jokes he is at least architect of something like flying glide. As I remember it can fly - at least for short distance...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.90.176 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is da Vinci :-)

message: This article has been formed by the merger of:- List of early flying machines, First flying machine and Early flight. The talk pages are still at their original locations:- Talk:List of early flying machines, Talk:First flying machine and Talk:Early flight Petebutt (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: For controversies about the early flying machines a sandbox was created. Please add your claims with the references and the rest in there. After enough information is added the sandbox will be published as an article to be referred from the Early flying machines or from the inventors/airplanes articles directly. --Lsorin (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversies sandbox is an apology, not an encyclopedia article. The reader would have to know what is being apologized for before understanding why it was written. No references, no structure. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea was copied from the Featured article Apollo 11's hoax stories added to the [See also] section and to stop the continuous mess up of Early flying machines and their aviators articles in Wikipedia. --Lsorin (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sandbox article at the Apollo 11 "See also" section. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies sandbox

message: Obviously, we are having multiple and conflicting  definitions of what constitutes the "true" flight. That's primarily causing the disputes about who flown first. I think the title "First flying machine" favors the childish "he-was-first/no-he-was-not" approach and unnecessarily heats up the disputes. Thus, I think it is better to merge everything into Early flying machines (and leave First flying machine as a redirect only). This way we will avoid duplicated and redundant efforts, and hopefully end up with a more balanced/NPOV article. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect "first flying machine" to be as much about the conflict over who was first while early flying machines is part of "development of manned/powered flight". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: About the conflict itself? In this case I think First flying machine controversy would be a much better title (per my comment above). --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say merge them. They cover much of the same ground.  And as GraemeLeggett says, one would expect  'first flying machine' to be about the (dreary) conflict about who did what where and when, but 'first flying machine controversy' would be a better title. The lists obviously need conflating- and adding to. I'm no expert, but I know of at least one early 'birdman' not on either list.TheLongTone (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that most of both articles should appear at Early flying machines. A separate article should be written about disputes regarding who flew first. Naturally, some of these two articles would appear in the dispute article. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy lies mostly in the eyes of those who believe that one or other got there first. On the whole I suspect mainstream opinion is that there is a broad swathe of individuals experimenting with ballons gliders kits and mixtures of all three from da Vinci forward to somewhere around Bleriot's crosschannel flight. And closer to Bleriot than da Vinci is the point at which the Wrights are credited with "successful" manned powered flight. To maintain an NPOV it would be better to describe each step and note what happened. And if an individual accomplishment has some dispute we should note it in passing (the detail should be in the relevant article on the individual or machine). To include the full story of every disputed claim would overwhelm the article but to try to write an article only on the controversies - while omitting the undisputed advances - risks forking and undue weight to minority views. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. In all Wikipedia articles I generally favor incorporating controversy as it is encountered in the story of a topic, integrated into each relevant section rather than segregating it into its own section. I'm not married to the idea of a controversy article. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Any separate on the 'contoversy' would need so much putting into context that it would inevitably duplicate much of this article. Having one article would make life simpler because otherwise there is the risk of two articles saying contracdictory things.TheLongTone (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if the article acually says anything other than the rather obvious point that one needs to define ones terms in any arguement. There's an awful lot of repetion and desperate overqualification of statements.TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus indicates that the two articles should be merged. The only thing left is for somebody to actually do it. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[First flying machine]] into [[Early flying machines]] 

message: This 'article' is a really horrible mess. Specifically, the same material is covered several times over: the section Claims to first piloted flight by date, and the tables in the section Table of flying machines headed More than design or literature & Historic records. There are a number of enties that are clearly in the wrong section here, something tha the confused layout encourages.  I'm doing some drastic pruning: for a start, the records section should, in my opinion, only have generally accepted achievements.
The intro is also competely misleading: there is no analysis, and  indeed if there was it would probably constitute OR.TheLongTone (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to have been a ping-pong match in which this article spent some time as a List of early flying machines. It certainly looks more like a list, or rather a set of lists, although I believe it has been merged from separate list articles. Worse, it is lists of early aviators and designers rather than of their machines. Related lists include List of firsts in aviation, Timeline of aviation and - most relevant to the bulk of this article's content - List of aviation pioneers. All that stuff needs moving across and editing down, with a completely new approach taken here, as indicated in the lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The lists do have the virtue of providing a place for the inclusion of fringe/marginal figures like Wnek or Montgomery. Without the list I think that these figures would get shoehorned into a narrative of the major verified achievements.TheLongTone (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to keep the less notable figures, machines and non-first achievements in the present article, whether in the text or a subsidiary list. I considered a List of aviation achievements but I think the Timeline of aviation performs that function well enough. There is also the List of aviation pioneers where the individual figures belong. So I see it as more a case of migrating the lists than keeping them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in priciple - my concern is that these fringe characters tend to have enthusiastic supporters who will keep inserting 'information', and this tends to be done with scant regard to the overall structure of the article. I guess that's just Wikipedia, though.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of life's little trials. maintaining this page pales into insignificance compared with keeping the electromagnetic pulse article free of nuclear blackout fanboyz or the polygon article free of bored schoolkids. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up 

message: I have now boiled several lists down to just these two. I am intending to merge the important facts from them into the main text, and ditch the rest. So it may not be worth tidying them too conscientiously. I believe they were merged in from several other places where they had no real home, and they don't really have a home here either, they just got dumped here as a starting point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists do have the virtue of providing a place for the inclusion of fringe/marginal figures like Wnek or Montgomery. Without the list I think that these figures would get shoehorned into a narrative of the major verified achievements.TheLongTone (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to keep the less notable figures, machines and non-first achievements in the present article, whether in the text or a subsidiary list. I considered a List of aviation achievements but I think the Timeline of aviation performs that function well enough. There is also the List of aviation pioneers where the individual figures belong. So I see it as more a case of migrating the lists than keeping them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in priciple - my concern is that these fringe characters tend to have enthusiastic supporters who will keep inserting 'information', and this tends to be done with scant regard to the overall structure of the article. I guess that's just Wikipedia, though.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of life's little trials. maintaining this page pales into insignificance compared with keeping the electromagnetic pulse article free of nuclear blackout fanboyz or the polygon article free of bored schoolkids. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological lists

message: Does this list belong in the article, or would it more appropriatly form a separate article?TheLongTone (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think it adds anything to this article, not sure it is notable enough to create a separate article either. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That the works are all redlinks is a bit of a giveaway for me. If important, they ought to have already been mentioned in the text anyway. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that arguement stands up. Both Cayley and Lillienthal's publications are obviously important, L'Empire de l'Air was an influence on the Wright brothers, and its dificult to dispute the importance of Chanute's attempt to gather together and publish a synopsis of what had been acheived in aeronautics in the late nineteenth century. Whether there is a worthwhile article to be written is another matter...I for one am not volunteering. I've far too many half-cooked articles on early French machines on the go for one thing.TheLongTone (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this list as I see the others - a resource to be worked into the main body of the text. I just split it off for now until someone could get around to that, and couldn't think of anywhere else to leave it. I can't see any sense in creating another article for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of literature 

message: What will happen to the "first flight" controversy once books are published that show there was a powered controlled manned "flight" in an "airplane" or "flying machine" that was covered by 150 +/- newspapers from around the world in 1901?Tomticker5 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who has read each and every one of the 150 +/- newspaper articles that covered the first flights made in Connecticut in 1901 would not be able to conclude; "all of them essentially rehashes of the same dubious article".Tomticker5 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If not, then the other newspapers were fabricating details. Only one newspaper asserts that they had a reporter present. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text:  I was referring to what would happen when books are written and released showing research of the various newspaper articles that covered airplane flights in Connecticut in 1901. Today there are tools that weren't available to past aviation historians. Will Wikipedia allow these newly released books to be added as sources to the various articles on the history of flight/airplanes, etc.?Tomticker5 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources were to say that they believed the flight happened in 1901 then that would get added to the articles. At the moment there are reliable sources that say the flight happened, but there are others that said that it didn't (or is doubtful) and for the moment those latter ones carry the weight of opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolving the controversy?

message: It has long been customary for any respected journal to publish its official views, on matters outside the main content, in the form of editorial comment. Several editors in the above discussions are claiming that this does not apply to Jane's All the World's Aircraft and we should discount its editorial comment, even when signed off by the Editor-in-Chief. I believe these wiki editors are misguided. Can we settle this here or do we need to move the discussion over to the village pump? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Jane's may be a reliable source for contemporary aviation matters but I fail to see how it's position on matters of aviation history bear weight that is comparible to that of the Smithsonian and a number of aviation historians. The editor of Jane's position is based on the beliefs of John Brown, the quality of whose website speaks for itself regarding his reliability and historical scrupulousness: Brown's major evidence is a forensic analsysis of a photo that he claims shows a photo on which the Bridgeport Herald illustration is based. This claim seems to have been  by Tom Crouch. If anything, what this seems to do is to diminish the any claim of the editor of Jane's to be considered a reliable source.TheLongTone (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to stay on topic. This topic is not about the Smithsonian, nor Brown, nor the content of Jane's foreword in their 2013 edition (copy here), nor even whether you regard Jane's as unreliable, but whether such a foreword may in general be taken as a statement of their position by a publication such as Jane's. Please could you explain why you discount this widely adopted convention, because I am beginning to smell more PoV-bashing every time you go off-topic again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the accounts of this issue describe Jane's editor Paul Jackson making the decision alone after interviewing John Brown in person. There is no description which includes calling together the editorial board of Jane's and putting the question to them. We are looking at an individual decision and an individual statement made in the Foreword to the book rather than in the text of the book. Thus the weight of Jane's is not fully behind Whitehead; it is only the personal respect that Jackson deserves as chief editor. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you are wrong about the relationship between Jackson and Jane's. If Jackson's view differed from Jane's as an entity, one might expect such a foreword to carry a disclaimer. There is none such here. Also, such a piece is unlikely to have been published unilaterally, it is normal practice in any publishing office to pass one's work across other pairs of eyes, and if there were substantial dissent within the organization that would have had to be resolved before publication. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand some of the questions about Jane's Whitehead comments; I don't totally agree with it myself.  But restating our opinions about it isn't going to change anything.  Jane's is an oft-used RS.  If this particular reference is an exception to being RS, we need a substantial weight of separate sources for that assertion.  A couple of contrary ones would still fall into the realm of being just controversial, not disallowed.  Without that substantial weight, I think we have to respect it still being used as a source, though should definitely note the disagreements when it's used.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of editorial content 

message: Fabulous, there is now a solid framework for a decent article. The content needs going through to remove some lumps and add decent references, but thats a relatively small matter. However, the article in my opinion does lack some mention of what was the raison d'etre of one of the articles that were merged to crate the horrible mess that User:Steelpillow has sorted out, namely some discussion about what makes a successful flight. I see this as heading the section on Langley, Whitehead & the Wrights, which I think should also include Santos-Dumont.TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed addition would be a good place for the Gibbs-Smith idea that a quarter mile traveled through the air constitutes a successful flight. Gibbs-Smith also had the idea that some early pioneers designed very stable aircraft, but others designed aircraft with relaxed stability which required dynamic pilot responses; this latter strategy was what made the Wrights succeed before everybody else. Responsive relaxed stability designs flown by skilled pilots were able to make best use of the wind currents. High stability aircraft designs needed higher powered engines to succeed, which they soon developed in time for the Great War. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, well covered by Gibbs-Smith, some available online via Flight. Additionally it's now possible to read early editions of l'Aerophile online via the bncf website. And there is probably something online in Flight coverage of the Gorrell report in the thirties.TheLongTone (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re the recent rewrite 

message: I've just created the above article, so the post-1910 stuff can be either deleted of copied across if necessary.TheLongTone (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, congratulations. I have been thinking for a while that this Early flying machines article covers too long a span to be coherent, so I'd like to see the material from 1904 onwards merged across and deleted from here. People will probably dicker and whinge about precise cutoff dates appropriate to each title, but IMHO the more encyclopedic view is to dicker and whinge about the article titles for each period (grin). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aviation in the pioneer era]] 

message: A recent edit changed the format of the dates in the section on Whitehead to American (mm d, y) format. Looking at the article I see that the is no existing consistency in date format... indeed at least one section contains both. Any strong feelings?? In any case, the article should be tidied up oone way or the other.TheLongTone (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the dates have been changed to the non-american d-m-y format, in articles like this without a direct connection to any particular country then we should stick with whatever the first author used as a date format and they should then all be the same (no I havent actually looked at what that was yet). MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to normalise not just dates but spelling too. The oldest useful version in the history dates from 2010 and has both mixed dates and spellings. Since then the content of several other articles/lists has been merged in. I'd suggest that whoever gets in there and does a major job on sorting it out should get to make the call. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. That was me who made the date format changes. While I was adding the "convert" template, I noticed the sections I was working on used both US and International dates. I decided to standardise them to the International format (i.e., the format used by ~95% of the world's population). I am fine with whichever format there is a consensus for use in this article . . . just so long as the entire article uses the same format. --Thorwald (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then can I suggest that we regard  as setting the precedent for the direction to normalise dates? I confess that I know little of spellings outside of the UK and USA, is there a similar international majorty standard spelling? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of spelling, currently three 'centre' vs four 'center', neither 'cancelled' nor 'canceled', about equal 'metre' and 'meter', but 'aeroplane' is used in the lede. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine much of the inconsistancy comes from the article being the result of a seies of merges. Is there a wikipedia equivalent of tossing a coin?TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's whatever the first editor to tackle the topic does. Since the first significant edit made a mess, I suggest we default to the first editor to start tackling the mess. That would appear to be Thorwald. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Steelpillow. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Format 

message: While there is some debate that Richard Pearse made sustained controlled flight pre-1904, his semi-successful attempts at doing so are sufficiently notable to be included in this article. 202.154.149.112 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to make the same point.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearse

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Early flying machines. 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/20130511071413/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511071413/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113080326/http://www.fai.org/news_archives/fai/000295.asp to http://www.fai.org/news_archives/fai/000295.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213024229/http://home.dayton.lib.oh.us:80/archives/wbcollection/wbscrapbooks1/WBScrapbooks10006.html to http://home.dayton.lib.oh.us/archives/wbcollection/wbscrapbooks1/WBScrapbooks10006.html
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) 16:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Early flying machines. 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/20130511041814/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt2.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511052409/http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt3.pdf to http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/OnAerialNavigationPt3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031222001544/http://www.centennialofflight.gov:80/essay/Prehistory/PH-OV.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/PH-OV.htm
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) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Early flying machines. 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/20140713201846/http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~leishman/Aero/history.html to http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~leishman/Aero/history.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.nasaexplores.com/lessons/01-007/9-12_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305060859/http://www.teamultimedia.com/HRMH/HRMH_6_2007.pdf to http://www.teamultimedia.com/HRMH/HRMH_6_2007.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Prehistory/PH-OV.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've added a POV template to this section, since it clearly gives undue emphasis to the Whitehead claims, and fails to note that the 2013 Jane's article was later  followed by a statement from its publishers clarifying that "The article reflected Mr. Jackson’s opinion on the issue and not that of IHS Jane’s."  It should also be noted that the Smithsonian was far from alone in criticising the Jane's article - just as an example the Royal Aeronautical Society issued a statement on the matter ("All available evidence fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights pre-dating those of the Wright brothers. The arguments in favour of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than 30 years after the fact...")  and many similar responses can be found. The consensus amongst mainstream historians remains unchanged, and per Wikipedia policy, we must make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitehead