Talk:List of early flying machines

message: I don't think this article is well-named.  It doesn't discuss early flying machines themselves, but rather discusses the problems of calling any one of them the "first" flying machine.  I think this should actually be titled "first flying machine", and have redirects for "flying machine" and "early flying machine".  A D Monroe III 22:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing that strikes me is that "Early Flying Machine" is in large parts a lengthy debate about what a Flying Machine is. Then comes an article similar to Aviation history. Aviation history is a much better page, and the debate is too detailed for a historical sketch. There is after all a page called Aircraft too. How about merging the pages? Fred chessplayer 22:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rereading, it still seems the only mention of the definition of a flying machine is to weigh the claims of being the first.  As you say, an article called "Early Flying Machines" should be part of Aviation history.  However, I think the subject of this is actually "First Flying Machine".  To counter Wikipedia's systemic bias, it's good to have an article pointing out that a great number of people outside of the US are quite sure that the Wright Brothers weren't first, although they don't agree who was.  Unless someone objects, over the next few days, I'm going to copyedit it to focus it a little more to that title, and then move it.  -- A D Monroe III 13:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title?

message: I've split this article.  See first flying machine.  I was going to just replace, as suggested above, but after working on this, the list seems like a good separate article.
However, according to Wikipedia policy, lists of things in articles have the name "List of Xs", not "Xs".  
I'll wait a few days for comments before I rename (move) this article.
--A D Monroe III 14:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it looks much better now --Fred chessplayer 10:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to "List of early flying machines"? 

message: You have to excuse my poor Swedish understanding of the English language. Since the introdution was too difficult for me, I've rephrased it in a way I hope presents the same information in a shape that is understandable for me and others like me. --Fred chessplayer 10:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Shouldn't balloons be included, too? 193.171.121.30 09:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: {You had forgot the brasilien priest Batrolomeu de Gusmão, that flyed in the beginig of th18th centuty in a baloon made by himself} [sic]. (Comment in brackets about Bartolomeu de Gusmão made by:201.41.24.187 on main article. Removed from main article and added to talk page by: Dr.K. 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balloons? 

message: Many ancient epics from India describes Early Flying machines. There's also a literature Vaimanika Shastra which is based on the Vedas. BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is covered in Vimana. added.  dab (𒁳) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramayana, Mahabharata

message: When the encyclopedia states something as fact, without qualification, that "fact" must be supported by undisputed references or very widespread general acceptance of the statement. That is not the case with Whitehead. The controversy over his "flights" is well-established. It is wrong for the encyclopedia to ignore that reality. It is true that there's more evidence for Whitehead than for several of the other entries in the article. That, however, does not constitute proof of the Whitehead achievements. An editor's bias (and I certainly have my own) does not justify an assertion of "fact" when that "fact" remains open to question. For example, the FAI (Federation Aeronautique International) recognizes the Wright Brothers, not Whitehead, as having made the first controlled flight. Consider the way the article now reads. A few entries after Whitehead's, the reader sees that the Wright Brothers made the "first" controlled flight. What is the reader to make of this? Our job as editors is to fix obvious contradictions and discrepancies within an article. That job clearly is not done yet in this article. I want to see specific suggestions on how the contradiction can be resolved.   DonFB (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add your magical potion, "Controversial claim; not confirmed by aviation historians.", to all entries which are not backed up by old dictionaries and old encyklopedias. That would be most of the entries. Or let the reader decide for himself what to think about it. The Whitehead entries are well enough backed up by historical records. The real problem here is that hundreds of millions of people have been very strongly convinced that they already know who invented the airplane. Whitehead is the biggest threat to their patriotic conviction, so they try to invent new ways to belittle and deny Whitehead's achievements. Remove all decisions by the editors, like the idea that Wright Brs. were the sole inventors of the airplane. (Roger J.)
I think we're making progress on these issues in the article. I understand the point that many of the entries could be described as "unconfirmed". However, I don't think any of them are as controversial or significant as the Whitehead claims, which in my opinion therefore deserve special care in the wording. I don't think it's necessary to say "alleged" for Cayley. I have not read a huge amount about him, but what I have seen does not indicate any dispute or doubt about his accomplishment. I agree with some other changes you made to the article. For the Wright Brothers, official organizations and professional aviation historians support the statement of "first successful..."; therefore the phrase "what has been called" (by whom?) should be considered weasel-worded. The use of the word "first" in the Vuia entry is simply not accurate. The earlier Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk was self-propelled, as were the aircraft of Ader, Pearse, and Whitehead, if one chooses to accept any of those claims. I'll make changes to the article to reflect my comments here, but I'm open to further discussion.  DonFB (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad to see the inclusion of in-text references or attributions on a few of the entries we're discussing. I'm changing the 1903 Wright Brothers entry to conform with this practice. I enjoy debating these issues, but in my early days here, I made the mistake of doing that in a very long-winded manner on a Discussion page. The Discussion pages are actually intended for comments directly related to improving articles, rather than general debates about subject matter. DonFB 18:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MORE ON WHITEHEAD

message: I think the table is better in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flight
We could delete this article and leave only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flight
But the ones who want to create "List of"-articles will create a new one.
So maybe the best is to make both as good as possible.
I have concentrated on the period 1899-1905, because the airplane was invented during that period, by whom is up to the readers to decide. We just give the reader's as much relevant facts as possible.  We erase what is obviously wrong or impossible. We give them references so they can study each inventor in more detail.
(Roger J.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.39 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple pages

message: I recommend reading these two pages which explain a lot:
http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/aviation_history/3032816.html?page=4&c=y
http://www.historynet.com/air_sea/aviation_history/3032816.html?page=5&c=y
Roger491127 08:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent article; read it several months ago. One of the best I've seen. Two other very good articles are hereand here. DonFB 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I believed, as you do, claims like he could fly with "hands off the controls" ("look, ma, no hands!") I wouldn't bother to make the careful attribution and sourcing edits that I make. I simply don't accept such unproven claims uncritically. By the way, if you haven't, see this extremely interesting  item,which is referenced in the Wright Brothers article. It actually could give some ammunition to anti-Wright commentators, but also nicely makes the case for controlled flight at Kitty Hawk.  DonFB 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The controversy

message: :Quoting you: "If the final and definitive truth was already known...."  Ah, but your very lengthy and forceful posts here seem to indicate that you feel, indeed, that you are in possession of the "final and definitive truth" about Mr. Whitehead and the Wrights. On the other hand, I agree with your quote, "I think it is fair to present the different versions as well as possible and leave the final judgement to the reader." That is why it is so important to use great care, especially in such a controversial issue like "first flight," to attribute statements or information to sources, rather than flatly declare that something is true, or that something happened. Going back to our early conversation, this is why words like "reported" or "claimed" are not necessarily weasel words, but can be very important in presenting information while avoiding a statement of "fact," or "truth," or "certainty," and allow the reader to decide if the "claim" or the "report" is true. But frankly, you appear to be quite hostile toward these Wright brothers, which does raise a question of "good faith". I do not disparage Whitehead as you do to the Wrights. I merely maintain a healthy skepticism about his story, and I work to ensure the article does not try to impose a "truth" on the readers when the "truth" is subject to so much debate by outside experts and researchers. DonFB (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have genuinely enjoyed our discussion here, but I think it's probably time we desist for a while and not consume too much more Wikipedia disk space. I hope we can work collaboratively and cordially on these articles in the future. Incidentally, your English is many orders of magnitude better than my Swedish.  DonFB (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth

message: Quote from http://www.pprune.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-48686.html
"Replicas and computer models show that the Flyer was unstable, especially in pitch, and that when modern pilots have a go at flying it in the sim they usually manage about one second before they lose control. If you read Wibur's account of the flying that day, especially the last, fourth flight, it would appear that the airplane had neutral stability in roll, since when the Flyer was upset in a gust, he applied opposite control via wing warping but it had no effect and he lost control, scraping a wing and nosing in, damaging the 'front rudder'. Luckily, he was only a few feet above the ground and his groundspeed was less than 20 mph so that he was not hurt. An argument could be made that the Flyer was not flyable except by the Wrights, and therefore their success could not be replicated, until the next model was flown, on its second attempt, 18 months later."Roger491127 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The facts about the Dec. 14 "flight" are correct, but don't belong in this entry which is growing excessively long, as are some others. I respect your right to believe the 4th flight of Dec. 17 was a crash, but your opinion does not belong in a Wikipedia article. (I commend to you again the photograph of the airplane after the 4th flight, to be seen at U.S.Library of Congress online.) The internet article at thewrightbrothers.org to which I previously referred you offers a very interesting discussion of the qualifications for a "successful" flight, and the issue of damage. DonFB (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Claim" wording at the top of the table does not eliminate the need to distinguish for readers which entry is a claim and which is established historical fact or generally accepted by outside sources. See also the Wikipedia Policy, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." DonFB (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder the same thing about you, and also regarding the Wright brothers. However, don't answer. Our job is not to compare our reading lists; our job is to Cite, Verify and use NPOV according to Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines. DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe not the strongest argument, but I haven't used it. I just pay attention to Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines on Citing Sources, Verifiability, and NPOV. DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work by the modern builders, and the flights are significant, but they don't prove that Whitehead flew 100 years ago. DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue is significant, but not for historical reasons. The issue is signifcant, because it illustrates that an editor should be very cautious when copying text from a source, and must always read and evaluate it carefully, no matter where it comes from, even Wikipedia. As editors, we must be much more than mere "copying machines". DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't invite you to discuss it, Rog; I invited you to fix it. I was such a busy man when I noticed it, I didn't have time to research it--until later. DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the table is better now too; it gives more information, and has been largely cleaned of many items of unseemly pov. DonFB (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flyer instability

message: I changed and removed some of your edits to the Wright brothers entry for 1903. You said you were quoting the Wright Flyer article and included this phrase as part of the quotation:
"ended in an unintended nose-dive into the sand" 
I do not see that phrase anywhere in the Wright Flyer article. Did you "accidentally" add it? If you were copying and pasting the quotation, it is difficult to understand how that additional phrase could suddenly appear by itself when you pasted it. Did you deliberately decide to pretend it was part of the quotation, which would raise questions about your "good faith"? You also included the following text in the entry:
Just before this "landing" the plane veered off sideways. Wilbur tried to use the wing warping controls to steer in the other direction but the wing warping controls did not work, so the end of one wing scratched the sand.
What is the source of this statement? Can you specify the page of an authoritative book or publication or website with URL? DonFB (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote 5 from the Wikipedia Verifiability Policy page:
Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. 
My italics.DonFB (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I again removed your unsourced text about the 4th flight. See my post immediately above about blogs as sources. DonFB (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You need reliable, verifiable sources for text you put in a Wikipedia article, Roger. "Judging" the "probability of the quote" is no substitute, and Wikipedia is not a blog. DonFB (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should put the source in a footnote or a link in the Article; that's where it belongs. If you don't, someone may challenge and remove the text—this is a controversial subject. Also, the POV "even more amazingly" and the POV exclamation point (!) do not belong in the article to emphasize the Encyclopedia's enthusiasm, unless they're included "in quotations!" to show a statement by a cited source. You're not a newbie, but I strongly recommend you read Wikpedia's Help pages and the Verifiability Policy for more guidance on how to write and edit articles.DonFB (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no purpose to all this.  This page is a list of flying machines, NOT a forum to promote POVs.  The Wright's flights can be listed, but not qualified here.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate quote; unsourced statement 

message: It's been proposed that this page be merged into First flying machine.  Please comment on the possible merge there.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations! Better late than never, eh?  To make them look even cleaner, use brackets. For example: TITLE of Article or Website. The brackets surround the web address and the title. Put a space between the actual web address and the Title. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with "First flying machine" 

message: There is a kind of hazy historic event horizon, beyond which our standards of historical reference and accuracy fail: beyond it, are myth, legend, folk tales and anecdotes.   Did soldiers enter Troy by means of a equine statue?   Maybe.   Was there a city named Troy and associated battles?   Most definitely.   The character and diversity of those myths hint at the edges of the events they were spawned by- and may be all the resource we have at this late date.   Omitting material because of probability is a subjective undertaking at best.   I personally find many of the claims ridiculous.   So may the reader.   It is for us to present the context of the lore, not to establish fact.   The reader is responsible for making those judgments.
With this view in mind, I restored the material relating to Yuan Huangtou; 2 of the 3 reference cited for the removal were found to be in support.Mavigogun (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mavigogun, the guy was thrown over the walls in a perverse act of execution. Why the heck should be introduce this kind of material here? If he is an aviator, then Baron Münchhausen is one, too! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not within our purview to establish fact- only present material reflecting the content of cited references.   Irrespective of the cause, a claim of flight was reported- and is no less substantiated than a large number from this list.   Whether any of these claims were blatantly impossibly or extremely unlikely fabrications or distorted legends, that is for the reader to judge- or to be qualified by reference.Mavigogun (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Claims

message: This article has been merged with:- Early flight and First flying machine to form Early flying machines. Petebutt (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger