Talk:Bede BD-5

message: A "BD-5 jet" has just gone down near Ottawa, possibly killing the unknown pilot:  http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/16/plane-crash.html?ref=rss Somegeek 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott Manning killed in BD-5J crash

message: However heart touching or well written the section on Scott Manning is, I feel that it should be removed from this piece for a few reasons:
# Wikipedia is not the format for things of this nature. Not only does this violate POV rules, it also conflicts with wikipedia's mission as a source for facts and information.
# This section is also written in the first person, which both exaggerates the POV of the piece and, once more, conflicts with wikipedia’s encyclopedia nature.
# And finally, it is, quite frankly, not really relevant information on the airplane itself.
If anyone wants to make an entry on the pilot or the incident, please do, and link to it in this entry. I just don’t think that this section really works...
--Schuyler s. 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Schuyler s. on all points.  However, I felt that the section had enough interesting content, and that Scott was noteworthy enough to support a new article.  I have copied the most-developed version of the section from this article's history and (with very minor edits) used it to create Scott Manning.  It still suffers from all the flaws that Schuyler s. noted.  I hope that the original author and others interested in Scott will develop it in to a complete article according to Wikipedia conventions. Somegeek 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of section

message: The BD5-J that has the Guiness Record has never actually flown, and the man who built it has it up for sale.  Many in the aviation community doubt that it will ever fly at the weight that it was certified at because of a lack of safety features. 
69.207.190.17 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallest Jet?

message: How can someone crash a plane on june 27th of 2007 i fI am reading about it on the 24th of the same month?
Rodrigo Ramos
ramos_trabado@yahoo.com
:Fixed. But surely it was obvious this was a typo?! Maury 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date. 

message: I'm considering removing this section. It's not that it's bad information, but it's really almost trivia. It was a builder-made one-off modification that didn't work out. I'm not sure that's really in keeping with the article, which is talking about the mainline developments. Comments? Maury 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acapella 100 

message: Let's stop with the edit-warring and discuss the problems.  Edit-warring over a tag is absurd. --Ronz 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF is WP:WIKIQUETTE?? Shot info 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Wikiquette. The issue is not the tag. I am all for discussing if it really deserves the tag. The issue is Ronz dropping it all over the place as if it was a god-given right. The Wikiquette policy clearly says that NPOV issues are discussed first to reach some sort of consensus, not imposed on an my way or the highway attitude. Flybd5 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but could you please indicate where it says that a tag cannot be placed on an article without prior discussion? --Ronz 15:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The guidelines for use of the advert and other associated tags are clear about this. Only advertising blatantly masquerading as articles should be tagged. There is zero policy statement that says advert tags should be used in the way you are using them. Therefore, the policy of discuss first, then consensus then edit applies by default. What you are doing is not only outside policy, it is also unnecessarily disruptive, which is also outside of WP guidelines. Flybd5 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  You didn't answer my question.  The link you provided is not a guideline for the advert tag.  I don't understand the edit-warring over a tag of all things.  The tag is to alert others to help with article. --Ronz 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit-warring

message: Moved from the article for discussion.  I don't see how these meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM:
*Official Web Site of the BD-5 Network
*Safran Group - Microturbo - Manufacturers of the TRS-18 turbojet engine used on most BD-5J Microjets
--Ronz 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree for the first one (after all, if there is no company, how can their be an "official" site) but the second one is the manufacturer.  I must admit, I didn't realise the Turbomeca is part of this group.  Personally I would prefer the link to them rather than the overall "Group".  But this is just my opinion.  Shot info 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the owner of the BD-5 web site. It is NOT a commercial site, it is the only comprehensive fully no-charge info resource site for the BD-5. Go look at it yourself. Flybd5 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for disclosing your WP:COI, which I was going to ask about.  Please read WP:COI and decide how you would like to proceed. --Ronz 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We could've if you had decided to stop editwarring by reverting normal editing practises.  BTW, the link you are after is WP:HARASS (or WP:STALK).  Shot info 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barking up the wrong tree again. The initial edit Ronz made on NPOV reasons was NOT normal editing practise. You bring up the issue in the talk page first, not make the edit first. What Ronz is doing is akin to shoot first, ask questions later, and that is NOT normal editing practice. Flybd5 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, he removed an EL, per WP:EL and WP:SPAM.  So far you have cried a bit of wolf with "wholesale edits" down to two suspect ELs, one of which you have a COI with.  So if that means you are going to write legions about other editors, then go for it.  It can be argued that Ronz  is a bit more experienced with "normal editing practise" having edited a few more articles and for little bit longer than yourself  however.  Shot info 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More experienced? Hmm. WP:EL says the link to bd5.com is admissible under items 3 and 4 of What should be linked?. The link also fails scrutiny on WP:SPAM because it has no commercial or sales or advertising nature of benefit to the alleged COI infringer, and is intended to promote the subject of the article (the aircraft), not a particular person.  What's your interpretation of WP:EL and WP:SPAM here? How does that link fall under that interpretation (short of a mile-long stretch)? Flybd5 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that one falls on its face too. Ten years on the web, referenced and used by such organizations as the Smithsonian, Aero-News Network (largest aviation daily in the world), etc. Try again some other time. Your opinion is no different than most other opinions out there. Flybd5 02:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a coi.  RS or not is irrelevant. --Ronz 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing about opinions, they're much like our rear exhaust ports, everyone has them and they all stink. That's why there's a policy of discussion and constructive engagement, not harassment and stalking. Flybd5 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The article has large numbers of paragraphs with no references.  It is possible that the reference at the end of the section is the actual reference, but it is unclear.  I don't really want to slap fact tags everwhere, but since Flybd5 seems to have a more intimate knowledge of where the info is sourced from, perhaps he/she would like to add them?  Shot info 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny you should mention it. I didn't make those entries, but look at where many of them point. The sources are the repository of knowledge I created for the BD-5. Look at the links. Do you NOW get it? My site is not COI, it's part of the encyclopedia effort, in this case for the BD-5. That's why you DISCUSS first, not blindly delete first. Oh, and BTW, the plate on the Smithsonian museum for the BD-5 they have references me as a source as well. Flybd5 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't read the WP:COI policy yet have you (can tell by how you are using the "COI" expression above).  BTW, I'm not going to continue to argue policy with you that you plainly haven't reviewed.  When you wish to make the article better, let us know.  Shot info 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let "us" know? Ah, so now you think you can violate WP:OWN too? You so funny. :P Flybd5 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow WP:TALK. Thanks! --Ronz 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion to all parties, keep cool and leave this alone while an admin looks over the situation. FWWI Bzuk 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I tried to move this to "See also" but then found it's not so easy to do so.  Are there standards for airplanes to follow to list such information?  Seems strange to place this below "External links." --Ronz 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably ok to leave it as is.  Shot info 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a standard way of presenting such aircraft info. --Ronz 01:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Related content" section

message: WTF is this? "Possible WP:SOCK. Please discuss why this link doesn't fail WPL#AVOID on talkpage" So, the story is that other editors might also be chiming in pro or con, but when someone makes a change that may support my argument you accuse them of being sockpuppets? Oh, I can't wait for other editors to look at this. Flybd5 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a meatpuppet.  Either way, this new editor's sole contribution is to spam and edit-war. --Ronz 03:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yours is what? To disrupt? Make baseless accusations? Hmm. Anyone is free to look at the work I've done here, as well as on the Spanish Wikipedia. Reach your own conclusions. Compare. I have nothing to hide. Can you say the same? Flybd5 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning the Spanish Wikipedia. --Ronz 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:SOCK??

message: The article has a lot of references, but when you read it, the references are to oddball notes, rather than most of the claims.  The reference tag is perfectly valid and it is a calling card to other editors to review the article and improve it.  Like what happens at a lot of other Wikipedia articles.  I personally don't mind the advert tag going but really, the article needs to be improved and we need to advertise that fact to the Community.  I'm not going to revert, lest it be taken the wrong way, however adding a tag is perfectly acceptable to normal Wikipedia practise.  Shot info 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all of that is understandable but the fact that the tags are being "hung" on the article before what has undoubtably become a contentious topic is fully discussed is not normal practise. Whenever a major change is contemplated or a debatable question is brought up, it is contingent on editors to seek a consensus on the talk page before engaging in a revert-edit war. What has been done is to put the article back to its original state and then the editor with a question as to veracity or use of references, takes up the point here, seeks a consensus and then proceeds with revisions that will improve the article. I do not support that the article is poorly written or researched as I am aware that an experienced editor recently made a major revision of this article. I will be contacting this editor/admin to have him look at the article again. FWIW Bzuk 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience here in WP (which obviously is different to yours), adding a tag doesn't make an article contentious.  Instead it is just an "advertisment" to other editors that there appears to be a problem.  Normally after a bit of discussion, some edits, lo and behold, the tags are removed.  It is only because of recent events that this is any more than what I consider to be normal practise...I mean, there's been reports and all sorts of stuff going on just because one editor got a little possessive.  Wikipedia can be edited, by anybody.  Obviously it can be reverted by anybody as well, but this leads to uglyness and now everybody has their backs up.  Personally I was going to put cite tags on everybody paragraph that didn't have a reference, but I thought it superiour to have it on the top of the article, to save 50% of the article from having  against it.  Different horses for different courses I suppose :-)  Shot info 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE#Unsourced_material. Shot info 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I perfectly agree and in most cases, the simple addition of a <refimprove> tag would have been appreciated but since this appeared in the midst of an edit war, it simply acerbates the problem and is not helpful. I would caution that everyone needs to take a step back, keep cool and come back to the talk page before proceeding. FWIW, count your  reverts- even after you were asked to go to the talk page. I will call on admin Maury M to take a look at the article. Bzuk 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the reasoning BUT lets ignore the editwar bit and just move on.  Article needs references?  Yes?  So lets wait for an editor to .... edit and add some refences.  When referenced, tag can come off.  Presumably Maury will provide this info?  Shot info 07:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and my advice is still the same, keep cool, stay out of the edit warring and don't forget to read the talk page: your analysis of the need for references was not universally accepted. This is not an article that has a wealth of reference material available as I tried to supplement the information myself and found that all I could find was a  series of contemporary journals and magazine articles. Finding more than those reference sources may prove difficult. However, this article will be reviewed shortly. FWIW Bzuk 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good advice, I think I saw that somewhere else... [:¬∆ Bzuk 07:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Deja vu, eh? :) Flybd5 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference tag

message: I've gone over the entire article and all the notes, and there are not nearly enough sources for what's written.  Note however that I've not checked any of the references in the "Bibliography" section.  I think a good next step would be to change the bibliography references so there is a clear indication of where each is being used per WP:V --Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know what is in need of cites or refs, mark them in the article and I'll start working on that. Flybd5 14:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entire article poorly sourced

message: While the "Deliveries end" sub-section is better sourced, are WP:BLP issues given the poor sourcing and controversial claims regarding Jim Bede's business practices.  These claims can be removed immediately and without further comment per WP:BLP, though I'd hope editors would discuss them instead. --Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark them as cites or refs needed and I'll work on finding sources or suggest deletion. Flybd5 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP concerns

message: The references in the "Bibliography" section were all added by Bzuk, and in edits that make it impossible to determine how or even if they are being used as references:
*Winchester
*Aleith & Davisson
*the other four
We need to sort out if and how these are being used. --Ronz 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful to find a source of info on guidelines for refs vs bibliographies. I agree as it stands now it is confusing. Flybd5 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: All the latest efforts seem to be linked to an individual editor's actions and now constitute a kind of "panic", see WP:PANIC. A number of suggestions were previously made on this page for editors to keep cool and have a dispationate approach to the subject. An experienced editor and admin who was involved in a major rewrite of the article has already been approached to review the article. Any continuing efforts to improve the article are appreciated but give the review some time to take effect. FWIW Bzuk 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not necessarily disagree with the effort to improve the article but I do question the sense of urgency that is being imparted by the tagging. {Refimprove} is perfectly acceptable and other tags may work but are they really necessary given the discussion already present on this talk page? FWIW, this set of tags appeared in the aftermath of an edit war wherein all parties were cautioned to take a "step back" and cool the rhetoric. Bzuk 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent tagging

message: This is published by the Smithsonian Institution.
It mentions the BD5-J. I hope it is considered fair use to quote the entire mention of the BD-5 here on the Talk page:Bede BD-5J—Perhaps no airplane has inspired more excitement among private pilots than the jet version of Jim Bede’s tiny BD-5 homebuilt kit airplane. Powered by a French TRS-18 turbojet of 225 pounds thrust, the BD-5J first flew in 1973, and became an instant superstar at airshows, performing previously unheard-of maneuvers like the quadruple vertical snap roll. Bede Aircraft went bankrupt before any complete kits were delivered, but a number of determined builders have carried on, and a handful of BD-5Js are flying today. With its aerobatic prowess, miniscule size, and space-ship looks, the BD-5J remains the epitome of the private pilot’s jet fantasy. Hollywood liked its look, too; James Bond (played by Roger Moore) flew one in the opening scenes of the 1983 movie Octopussy.I don't know if this can qualify as a reference for any claims currently in the article, but if so, it might be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New online article on small jet aircraft in Air and Space Magazine 

message: * 
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3175610/Precision-flying-expert-killed-homebuilt-version-mini-jet-immortalised-Bond-film-Octopussy-crashes-field-practice-air-show.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2015 Devon BD-5 crash 

message: The article says the most BD-5s completed are flying, while the info box says that most are airworthy, but few are flying. - ZLEA  (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bede BD-5. 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/20050612082136/http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/bede5a.htm to http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/bede5a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001801/http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?from=ga&id=676 to http://records.fai.org/pilot.asp?from=ga&id=676
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040328060426/http://bd5.com/superbd5.gif to http://www.bd5.com/superbd5.gif
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415081648/http://www.smart-1.us/index.html to http://www.smart-1.us/index.html
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) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)