Talk:Man-lifting kite

message: I have just removed this paragraph from the text:
In the United States, advances continued to be made in man-lifting kites. Lieutenant Wise lifted a rig of a combined weight of 229 pounds (104 kg), including the passenger, over 40 feet (12.2 m)using a Hargrave type rig of box kites. W. A. Eddy reached a record height of 5,595 feet (1,705 m) using Malay kites, remaining aloft for over 15 hours. Early aircraft designs incorporated design features gained from kites, and in October 1901, Almenia Rice, a circus performer, used a kite to fly for several minutes after launching from the roof of a Boston building.
However, if you go to the reference provided, you will see that the reference actually states that only the TOP kite (at the end of a 2 mile-long cord) reached the 5,595 foot height and remained aloft for 15 hours. I also corrected another error in the preceding paragraph. I recommend this article be thoroughly fact checked, as it seems it was given some fictional, exaggerated "facts" by someone. Radishes (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies in article

message: Nice article.  I wonder if this article should be called "person-lifting kite" as gender-neutral language is better unless there is an English language term that is so well known that it won't go away (i.e. maneating shark, manpower, etc.)  If that seems like asking for too much, can it be shown that "man-lifting kite" is a direct translation of an established non-English language term rather than an ad hoc label?  Share your thoughts.  House of Scandal 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is referred to in all the sources as a "man-lifting kite" (you can find mentions of person- and human- as you can with human-eating shark but they are in the minority). I'm all for gender neutral language, and considered it when creating the article, but I don't think it is appropriate here. Yomanganitalk 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Person-lifting kite?

message: Contributed to the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition (no mention of his now more famour brother). Jackiespeel 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain B.F.S Baden-Powell

message: Kawamura Zuiken used kite to lift slender string over the roof of temple and use string to pull thicker rope and then rope rudder. Zuiken tied the end of the rope to a large tree on the opposite side.Then workmans climbed on the roof with rudder.His kite is not Man-lifting kite.  Fuusenn (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kawamura Zuiken

message: A kite has anchoring, tether, and tethered airfoils. What the emperor seems to have done was to have the prisoners strapped to wings for jumping out to fly hopefully; such would be gliding, not kiting. Close fact finding is recommended. If the device was glider and not kite, then the story does not fit the article, but could go into a gliding article.  68.123.232.44 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emperor punishment might not have been kites at all, but perhaps gliders 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Man-lifting kite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060812204923/http://www.drachen.org:80/journals/a09/Baden-Powell.pdf to http://www.drachen.org/journals/a09/Baden-Powell.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: '... Nowadays, most man-lifting is carried out on a dual line system, where the passenger on a single kite ascends a line held under tension by a train of kites....'
.
I'd like to see an example of this type of device.  A picture shouldn't be hard to find if it really does represent 'most man-lifting' by kites.   It seems parakiting (person lifted by a kite towed behind a boat) would be a strong contender for 'most' in this situation.   It is certainly easier to find pictures of parakiting than for a dual line man lifting single kite supported by a train of kites.
BGriffin (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim needs support of an example/reference... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Man-lifting kite. 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/20070831065553/http://www.innovated.gov.au/Innovated%5Ccase_studies%5CHang_Glider.pdf to http://www.innovated.gov.au/Innovated%5Ccase_studies%5CHang_Glider.pdf
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) 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do Kiteboards count as man-carrying kites? they only offer a brief hop, not sustained flight. I cannot find any RS which says they do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore than jumping counts as flying! - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes. As the article itself points out (and assorted literature provides) there is an ever-changing definition. Are we accepting the story from the Book of Sui as man-lifting kites, even though they could perhaps be better described as gliders or even bamboo parachutes? Do we also accept Cody's glider kites and Rogallo gliders, which usually aren't considered kites except when anchored, as both of these are in the article? The kites used by kiteboarding can easily lift several hundred kilograms. They can and do lift people, and the kites themselves are capable of sustained man-lifting when anchored. The kites inherently have man-lifting power; their ability to lift kiteboarders is a reason they are chosen. They aren't anchored and are used over water, both affect the safety and recreational use since they returning quickly from the sky rather than staying aloft like a balloon, but the kites themselves are man-lifters. According to kiteboarding industry numbers, about 1.2 million people use them, many specifically for their man-lifting abilities. So yes, they kites are man-lifters even if they usually aren't used for long-duration flights. Bwagstaff (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of confusions there. If something in an article is being questioned, it is not meaningful to offer its presence in the article as support for its presence in the article. A glider without a tether is a glider and not a kite. Cody only called his line-launched glider a "glider-kite" because at that time the Balloon Factory forbad him from making aeroplanes on site. The primary purpose of the kite in kiteboarding is motive power, not lift; Thrust SSC used aircraft engines but that did not make it an aircraft. Even if one accepts that kiteboarding sometimes engages man-lifting kites, the historical origins of man-lifting belong in the man-lifting kite article and not in the kiteboarding one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, in the 17th through 19th centuries the purpose of man-lifting kites was lift. Interest dropped in the early 20th century with airplanes and hot air ballooning. I guess the better question is timeliness. Is this article about the history of man-lifting kites up through the middle of the 20th century? That specific use for man-lifting kites has virtually ended as dramatically safer alternatives exist. I see nearly no examples of 21st century moored flights, apart from a very small number of the kites (the ones used by kiteboarders) on an extremely short tether as exhibition, but they're nothing compared to the more than a million people globally in kiteboarding. If "modern" means "up through the 1960s", then by all means exclude it. If "modern kiting" means including the widespread use in the 21st century, then it should be included. Personally I feel the use has evolved. That is exactly why I left it as a "see also|Kiteboarding" in the article, the kites themselves are used for man-lifting, but there is the possibility (which I have never seen) that other forms still exist in present-day use. Those wanting to see the popular 21st century use can look up the modern sport, otherwise it is merely two paragraphs on an otherwise historical activity. Bwagstaff (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of areas which this article does not cover, by all means add them, though I'd suggest you make sure they are within the article scope first. I'll get on and remove some stuff that isn't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also moved some stuff to Power kite because it was not related to boarding/waterskiing or man lifting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Please no attacks like "the false guise", the history shows multiple nearly-conflicting edits made within minutes of each other and these were among them. Back on subject, like you, I stripped some content but also left in topics I didn't feel were relevant. The four paragraphs regarding the Rogallo wing seem more about hang gliding, nor did I see the connection in the paragraphs regarding flat kites. Hang gliding is somewhat connected as it is people in unpowered flight, although those feel awkward in the article as written. In contrast, I do see a strong connection between early man-lifting kites and modern kiteboarding aerialists. Bwagstaff (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After some additional digging through page history through 2014, I now see the connection with Rogallo wings. I've updated the topic for consistency, the existing sections were "Early History", "17th to early 20th centuries", so converting this to "late 20th and early 21st centuries". I've also made the connection between the topics explicit, linking to both kiteboarding and paragliding which evolved from the earlier man-lifting kites.  Bwagstaff (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

text: You did restore almost a thousand characters of deleted content and you did identify it in your edit comment as a "Small shuffling of content". I fail to see any "attack" in my factual description of those actions. Nor was such a restoration, by far the largest and most significant of your "multiple and nearly-conflicting edits", mentioned in any edit comment. Is it too much to expect a more collaborative approach to reverting other editors? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your intent, your comments come across as rude and condescending. I will continue to add content to the article for modern kites as it pertains to man-lifting, and I'd prefer it not get into a wiki-war about how the 19th century usage is different than the 21st century usage. Unlike 130 years ago where man-lifting was a dangerous rarity, modern kiting includes man-lifting as a component in an active sport enjoyed on a daily basis with literally millions of people globally. I can understand and respect that you and I seem to see man-lifting differently, but there is room for both historical and modern perspectives on the article. Bwagstaff (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I appeared unnecessarily rude and condescending. Perhaps you were/are unaware how deliberately misleading and mischievous your edit comment appeared to be. Also, I am not aware that I have held back the addition of material on modern man-lifters; just tidied it a little for other encyclopedic reasons, such as staying on topic. But it was half a year ago; to bring it up again after so long seems a tad strange. And I see that a lot of that off-topic material has crept back; this is an article about man-lifting kites, with gliders, ultralights and towing kites having their own articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also removing your material on kiteboarding again. You have provided no citations to support your claim that kiteboards are classed as man-lifting kites rather than indulging in mere transient acrobatics. It doesn't matter who is right, what matters here is Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:BURDEN. Find sources which explicitly describe kiteboards as man-lifters, and I will happily accept relevant content supported by those sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition is not the only definition nor viewpoint. Your edit reasons state they are dubious, off topic, or irrelevant, but as you know, Wikipedia practice is to use tags such as ,  and  for collaborative editing. Taking this to user talk pages, but please follow Wikipedia's collaborative processes. Bwagstaff (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

text: In particular, this quote from one of your edits, "", by your own admission explicitly rules out most of your additions as not "man-lifting". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

text: So leaving in more than I believe is really viable, tagging it with  and inviting more interested parties to participate like this is not enough? OK, just now I invited the parent WikiProject too. But if you would prefer jumping straight into our Byzantine community bureaucracy, go ahead your collaborative way, that's OK by me (though I would suggest it to be unwise, as yet). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for restoring much of it, with some edits. Bwagstaff (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

text: The following post is moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Man-lifting kites, to keep the discussion all in one place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

text: For the contrasting viewpoint, repeatedly deleting additions outright rather than tagging with  and  is against the spirit of collaborative editing, if not also against Wikipedia policies. The additions were regarding both kiteboarding and parasailing (with links to the related splintered-off sports of paragliding and hang gliding which are untethered and therefore not kites). As for relevance of kiteboarding and parasailing kites being classed as man-lifting, one needs to only look at modern advertising and reporting about the kites. As has been noted in the talk page for years, modern usage avoids the gendered "man-lifting" title, but the tradition continues. For the kites used in kiteboarding: "Advanced Power Kites Lift You Off The Ground", or quoting another advertisement: "In good conditions, an advanced pilot can launch 20-40 feet above the water and soar for up to seven seconds... With kiteboarding, you're hanging for football field lengths in the air." A few moments searching the web reveals advertisements and videos galore describing flying, jumping, and otherwise launching the pilot. As mentioned in the article (before it was deleted without discussion) the sport has well over a million participants globally, and kiteboarding (including the mid-air components that are part of judging) are now an Olympic sport. The other modern variant, parasailing, is similarly advertised (with less gendered language), expressions like "take to the sky", "launch yourself", and "ride the wind" are common. Both kiteboarding and parasailing continue the tradition of lifting people using high-power kites. While the historical view from the late 1800s is certainly encyclopedic, the modern view of man-lifting is relevant encyclopedic content as well. Bwagstaff (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article on parasailing states right at the very top:  Note the title of this discussion is "Kiteboarding". This article is about man-lifting kites, it is not about your favourite watersports, however hugely popular they might be. The parasail is readily verifiable as a man-lifting kite, the kiteboard and paraglider are not. All your enthusiasm for things which are not man-lifting kites cannot change that; they do not belong here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Another link. Again, not sure anyone would claim kitesurfing kites are safe for this. But it's been done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-EssU_rlnY Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiteboarding 

message: I'm curious why you changed the tone of the article. Before it was mostly chronological with a series of innovative events. Now the rewritten segment is more like a "list of" format. Now it feels jarring: "Early history, 636 CE, 700 AD, 1282, 17th to 20th centuries, early 1890s, 1885-1894, 1890s, 1901-1908, Modern Miting, flat kites, Rogallo kites, parafoil kites."  If you go back slightly [to this the text takes almost exactly the same screen space and remains in a chronological format, where instead of "Modern Kiting, list", it was "Late 20th and early 21st Centuries, 1950s, 1960s, 1963, 1964, early 1970s, early 2000s, 2012, 2020", continuing on the chronological format. Is there a reason for the shift in tone? I'm not sure it makes the article better. Bwagstaff (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: History seems to have developed in discontinuous jumps. It makes the date-specific titles look a mess. So I am trying to capture the three distinct eras with descriptive titles. I don't think the subdivision of modern times into distinct types is worth keeping either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: section headings

message: Man-carrying kites are believed to have been used extensively in ancient China, for both civil and military purposes and sometimes enforced as a punishment.[1] These early manned kite flights presumably "required manhandling on the ground with considerable skill, and with the intention of keeping the kites flying as long and as far as possible."[2]
Is there any evidence of this besides it being claimed? I've found so many discrepencies with what China has done 'first' on Wikipedia, including bells, and gongs, almost three thousand years before the copper age (i.e. when they were still in the stone age they claimed to have brass (developed during the bronze age) gongs and bells) and this was extensively claimed, cited, and supported by links yet absolutely illogical and impossible. It almost seems as if China has written about everything first, but when it comes to existing archeological finds or evidence of said invention actually ever being made it always appears to turn up in modern day Poland, Belarus, or Germany. The more I dig with all these Chinese technologies the more I find those three countries again and again, they rarely ever feature in Wikipedia articles on the topic and China always appears right at the front of every article for writing about it first, and yet the oldest version of everything always seems to have been found there. 
We know that the Chinese government has entire call centres of workers devoted to editing Wikipedia to the point they were banned a long time ago, and yet we still see these unsupported claims with NO archeological evidence. Is that the case here too? 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I share your concerns. Nor is China the only nation which seeks to shamefacedly subvert the truth for its own fatuous glorification, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I seem to recall deleting some unsubstantiated Chinese claims a while back. However, like gunpowder and a fair few other things, the Chinese origin of kiting was acknowledged long before the propagandists got so organized. The two sources cited in that quote, Pelham and Ronan, are about as solid as one can get. I have a copy of Pelham and it does verify many of the claim/s. I don't know about Ronan but that "presumably" suggest over-interpretation in this article, maybe that should go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese claims?