Talk:Paragliding

external link deleted

i have deleted the external link HangGliderHistory Timeline, includes paragliders as a class of hang gliders and when i clicked on it the the url redirected to an advertising site! Topmark 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The content was moved to: http://www.energykitesystems.net/hgh/to.html Someone may install the link. Joefaust (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Speed range

I changed the average speed range from 20-60 km/h to 21-45 km/h, which seems much more indicative of the normal wing. I also added the equivalent range in mph.

For consistency, all the metric data should also probably be presented in the English system to make the data more meaningful to more people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.28.92 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Paragliding & paraglider

At present Paraglider redirects to this article. Would it make sense to create two separate articles: one on the sport and one on the aircraft themselves, analogous to glider and gliding? JMcC (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Manormadman (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• ::Yes. >>> It would make very good sense to split to two articles. The very rich space of the machine class "paraglider" has a long history and has wide mechanical variation. Popular use of just a narrow choice of current machines should not replace looking at the machines themselves that have and are in the noteworthy aviation flow. A split would take some work, but would be worth it. Machine history for paraglider begins in the 1800s with loosed anchors in parakites. The machine paraglider need not be manned, has been used with inanimate free-falling payloads (the resistive anchor of a paraglider). The paraglider consists of three large segments: free-falling payload is one part; the tether set is another, and the wing another. The wing of the paraglider can be solid, semi-solid, stiffened sail, or full limp canopy. The essence of paraglider comes from it being a free-gliding kite system unpowered; the powered paraglider still has the paraglider but obtains propulsion from added onboard powered propulsion unit. The article on Paraglider could have a paragraph that the paraglider can be used with a powered propulsion system; such forms an extended use of the paraglider; still the essence are those three parts: hung anchor, tether set, and wing ...in gliding flight. Variants on anchor, tether set, and wing form a rich panorama of machines that is buried when remains slight comment in an article about the use of paragliders: paragliding. So, splitting to two articles is recommended for best encyclopedic coverage. Joefaust (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, tethered kites are not paragliders. The clue is in the "glider" bit of the word. There were no paragliders in the 1800s. Manormadman (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

All paragliders are kites; some kites are not gliders; the superset is kite; you will not find a paraglider that is not a kite; but one can find a kite that is not a paraglider. The kites that are gliding holds paragliders. There was an observed set of parakites that were in paraglider mode in 1895: Realie and Racie were the two ends tethered together and doing a XC glide; the system was a parakite system; the system was a kite system. Your phrase almost works if you put "some" for "Some tethered kites are not paragliders." If I stumbled someplace, let me know. It has been clear for 50 years to me that paragliders are kites and that only strictly many kites are not paragliders. I await for you to show me a paraglider that is not a kite (don't show me just the wing when the conversationalist is failing to include the necessary tether and necessary payload). To get on the same page: kite::tri-part assembly:: wing set, tether set, resistive set (can move). When the resistive set is moving freely in fluid in a manner that a resist occurs translated in tension through the tether set to the wing, then we have a kite; in particular, when the resistive set is in air and being attractive by gravity as the source for the resistance, and the wing is set with positive L/D, then we get a resultant motion called glide; we get a gliding kite:: paraglider. All kites in this scheme have tethers. "tethering a kite is like extending the tether to a second resistive set; that results in a kite that has two nodes of resistive element, like putting laundry or flag at mid tether. Joefaust (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A kite is; A bird: we are not discussing this type of kite here; A geometric shape with four sides: we are not discussing that here either; A tethered flying object: we are not discussing aerodynamic theory here as there is a big difference between a kite where the tethered object is planet earth and the tethered object is a pilot 10m below flying at 3000m AGL. No one defines a kite as a wing with something below it attached by lines. Is a fire-fighting aircraft with a bag of water underneath a rigid kite with an engine? No. It is not. Is a sailplane (glider) with a bag of water underneath a free-flying rigid kite? No. It is not. They are both aircraft with payloads. Can we drop the kite thing now? I know, it's going to be tough after 50 years, but you're going to have to let it go, Oh, and perhaps the 1895 history stuff too? Phew.... 88xxxx (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All three of you are making the mistake common to experts in your field: you're arguing about what is or is not true, based on logic, examples, etymology, history, etc. I know that this sounds weird, but in a very literal sense, none of that matters on Wikiepdia. In other words, even if one or all of you were widely known (off of Wikipedia) as the world's foremost authority on paragliders, kites, or whatever, your opinion would have no validity here (by itself). Instead, we only care about what reliable sources say. If one of you is actually a published expert in the field, you are free to use reliable books/articles you have published (though we strongly recommend that, when you do, you openly admit that you're citing your own work). So stop trying to argue about whether or not kites are paragliders or a subset of a superset of wings that parakite the gliding tethered rigid free-flyers with tri-part Martian made secret 1895 technology. Or whatever it is that you're saying. Instead, get reliable sources. Link to them here if they are online, or provide bibliographic info and key quotations here if they are not. We must let the reliable sources decide. In cases where reliable sources disagree, we are supposed to provide all views (making sure to follow WP:DUE). Okay? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now please bear in mind that we are a minority sport without much in the way of published papers to describe what we do and how we do it. Some of the published data we do have refers to 50-60 years ago when NASA were trying to develop early methods of returning spacecraft to earth and were assigning the phrase paraglider to what today we would call a steerable parachute. I'll have a stab though. 88xxxx (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NASA TECHNICAL NOTE D-443 "PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF A PARAGLIDER", 1960, Francis M. Rogallo, John G. Lowry, Delwin R. Croom, and Robert, http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf , "A preliminary investigation of the aerodynamic and control characteristics of a flexible glider similar to a parachute in construction has been made at the Langley Research Center to evaluate its capabilities as a reentry glider." 88xxxx (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR THE PARAGLIDER COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN GUIDE", 2001, Yuri Mosseev, http://mosseev.webzone.ru/CAD/paper.doc , "The CAD/CAE system consisting of the design guide and on-line software was developed for ram-air parachutes. The main features of the design guide, the software capabilities and examples of application are discussed." 88xxxx (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"MODELING AND MOTION ANALYSIS OF AUTONOMOUS PARAGLIDERS", 2010, Chiara Toglia, Marilena Vendittelli, "This report describes a preliminary study on modelling and control of parafoil and payload systems with the twofold objective of developing tools for automatic testing and classification of parafoils and of devising autonomous paragliders able to accomplish long-range delivery or monitoring tasks. Three different models of decreasing complexity are derived and their accuracy compared by simulation." 88xxxx (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a single mention of the word kite. The most notable reference would be the first one, Francis Rogallo being the inventor of what we think of today as steerable parachutes and the forefather of today's modern paragliders. 88xxxx (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All those works were respecting Rogallo's inputs from his kite patent; the nods were published in that respect. "Kite" was the mechanical common mechanical device set in gliding mode. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/memoriam_frogallo.html So fundamental mechanical fact of kite was saturating the paraglider developments. Without kite there is no paraglider flying machine. Joefaust (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The online summary of Rogallo's work you reference does not describe a paraglider as a kite. 88xxxx (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

http://openjurist.org/475/f2d/1/rogallo-v-united-states begins to inform how basic and saturated were the projects surrounding the parawing and its related paragliders; as the oxygen or blood of body. The community was of engineers and aerodynamicists and scientists; the airfoil of the parawing was studied, the constructions, vehicles and paragliders were in gratitude openly to the lifeblood kite patent. Joefaust (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That court paper does not describe a paraglider as a kit, it describes Rogallos first parawing as a kite - presumably because Rogallo flew it on the end of a bit of string.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That was presented to indicate evidence of that huge paraglider community at NASA and branched paraglider companies giving nod (largest ever to inventor) for his kite patent. In the patent was describe the kite and its stiffening potential and its glider potential. That foundation was gave two things: a wing and the use of the wing; the wing itself was not a kite as kites need the string set; such was and is so fundamental ... it is like the water in human bodies. The wing is not a kite, not a glider, not an aircraft; it is when a wing is balanced in material form for flight that an aircraft is born. When a materialized wing or airfoil is balance and propelled by the tension in string ...then a kite is in front of those skilled in the art; and the whole NASA engineering community was skilled in the art; when the wing Rogallo wing was stringed to resistive loads: paraglider: thus the kite was paraglider in those circles. And that comes today in the midst of active paraglider circle, not all for those not skilled in the arts; the language was used in Self-Soar Association in which Rogallo himself paraticipated in the 1970s. And in 2011: "Besides the flying, the paraglider is a kite.." http://footflyer.com/Articles/Ultralights/ultralights.htm Joefaust (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe: I, for one, am losing patience with your repetitive rubbish and complete inability to back up your notion that a paraglider is a kite. It "may" have been partly developed from such, but that's not the question here. Did you even read that last reference you gave? The one titled "Ultralights Compared, Powered Paragliders & Others". It is an article about powered paragliding not paragliding, and the quote you give refers to the ground-handling practice that pilots do called "kiting": "Besides the flying, the paraglider is a kite that can provide hours of fun on a windy day in the sand.". What part of "besides the flying" do you not understand? That's like saying that a car is a non-motorised vehicle if you turn the engine off and free-wheel down a hill. No, it's not a non-motorised vehicle, it is a car with the engine off. If you stand on the ground a raise a paraglider above your head it may act like a kite, but that does not make it a kite does it? 88xxxx (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you have it; yes, when a kite is a kite, then it is a kite. Not only acts like one in all respects, but is a kite. Many in your forum tell authorities that they are with a kite, while in other circles they use the word paraglider. You finally see it; it has always been a kite. And yes, there are motorized cars and unmotorized cars; there are motorized toy cars and unmotorized toy cars. Basic. Wing, tensioned tether, source of tension: in a flowing medium providing L/D on the wing for deflection. Fundamental mechanics, fundamental aerodynamics, fundamental aviation; those skilled in the arts by the thousands throughout the ages have known the kite principle and known where that principle is embodied. You sure do like to lose patience frequently and see views contrary to your own as rubbish. Let's just call a truce on that; your pattern is clear: you won't agree with the Faust. Consider giving your slams a rest. Joefaust (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A paraglider is not a kite. All of the above is simply your misguided opinion. 88xxxx (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

David Barish looked appropriately to kite world for setting the line lengths to his kite in his slope soarer. Such was so because as an engineer he knew he had mechanically a kite in his gliding kite device. His patent was on a wing; the wing gets used into devices: various aircraft types. Interview.Very guided remarks guided by basic mechanics. Joefaust (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As per Rogallo's paper, 1960; http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf , I would like to suggest that from this point on we refer to paragliders as flexible gliders. He states: "The glider consists of a flexible wing with a load suspended beneath it on cables. A sketch of the general configuration is shown as figure i. Control of such a vehicle is achieved by changing the center of gravity of the glider with respect to the wing. Moving the payload to the rear causes an increase in the angle of attack. Turns to the left or right are accomplished by moving the payload left or right with respect to the wing. Gliders thus far flown have exhibited excellent stability and can be controlled to very high angles of attack." I think we can all agree that what he is describing is an early paraglider and he is consistently using the term "flexible wing" or "glider" to do so. 88xxxx (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

From his patent through the papers you bring up "flexible" included flexible sails while the projects and studies and vehicles covered stiffenings from inflatable booms to rigid beams, following again Rogallo's lead from his patent; indeed the role of stiffening played most of the projects of NASA. The absolutely fully flexible canopy Rogallo wing was stiffened with various beams, booms, battens, and airframing. The sail would be understood as flexible while the airframing in the paragliders were stiffening the "flexible glider". Joefaust (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a series of references got by googling "dictionary" and then following several links on the first page (preferring online sites of printed dictionaries) to look up the word kite.

• dictionary.reference.com: "a light frame covered with some thin material, to be flown in the wind at the end of a long string."
• www.merriam-webster.com: "a light frame covered with paper, cloth, or plastic, often provided with a stabilizing tail, and designed to be flown in the air at the end of a long string"
• dictionary.cambridge.org: "an object consisting of a frame covered with plastic, paper or cloth that is flown in the air at the end of a long string, especially for pleasure"
• www.thefreedictionary.com: "A light framework covered with cloth, plastic, or paper, designed to be flown in the wind at the end of a long string"
• oxforddictionaries.com: "a toy consisting of a light frame with thin material stretched over it, flown in the wind at the end of a long string"
• www.macmillandictionary.com: "a toy that flies in the air while you hold it by a long string"

Notice the recurring motif of a long string? That's because the common definition of a kite refers to a wing that is tethered. So while both HG and PG can be flown for short periods while tethered to a winch, their primary mode of flying is untethered. They are thus not kites. As far as I am concerened, end of, unless Joe can produce some more compelling references that state that they are commonly considered kites. Jontyla (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Selected dictionaries do not rule WP. WP is not a dictionary. You missed dictionaries in aviation. Nevertheless, "long" is fuzzy; I recall flying a 10 cent kite that featured its essential part of tether set at 3 feet or about 1 meter; is that "long"? What about those millions of kites sold each year in a package; the package has wing, the kite's line(s), the kite's resistive tool with implied hand hold: three essential parts. Paraglider fits your given definitions; hence paraglider by that is kite. By default some art circles let the word "kite" site just for the wing. A flying wing unpowered is a glider; to get to paraglider, one needs the paraglider's tethers and a resistive sub-assembly that maintains tension on the other two sub-assemblies. Take your wing, but off the tethers and work just with the wing; what you will have is just a wing, not paraglider; try it; toss it and get a wad glider with form that might carry sand and itself in an extremely erratic very-low glider, but it would be a glider, not a paraglider. To get to paraglider, add the parts to a paraglider that make it a paraglider with integrity. WP should not lead readers far astray into unrealistic disinformation; the wing of a paraglider is just that: a wing of the paraglider and not the whole paraglider. The whole paraglider is a gliding kite with the essential parts to make it a paraglider. Joefaust (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatalities

I have tried removing references to a living person who has demanded his name not be used in this discussion. Wikipedia administrators know full well that I am within my rights to do this. I would like an explanation from Wikipedia administrators why this behavior is allowed to continue, if they plan to stop it and when it will stop.

Mr Anonymous Astley: have you tried scrolling down the page a little? No? Ok, then let's have a quick game of "quote an admin" shall we: "Using the name of a living person is not a violation of those rules (so long as you aren't being insulting)." I love Rick Masters. I think Rick Masters is cute and cuddly. User "nopara", on the other hand, is constantly posting on here in another rather sad effort. 88xxxx (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Landing: vertical rather than horizontal speed

As part of the defacement cleanup I also removed (or more accurately didn't reinstate) the changes made about landing speed. Although not malicious, this information seemed to me to be incorrect, and the emphasis placed on it being a common misconception seemed to be uncalled for even if the information were correct - this is a general article and not aimed at specialists. If the author feels strongly that their information was correct then a good course of action would be to discuss it on the worldwide paragliding forum - paraglidingforum.com - and if a consensus is achieved then make any relevant changes here. Jontyla (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is seen that an unsignor on Oct.1 or 2, 2011 undid much expanding referenced work; we invite you to first discussion proposed changes. The narrow POV that you have tried to keep is something that will not stay as a neutral point of view comes to serve readers. I hold out that the unsignor might be you, Jontyla, as the actions follow your past rashness. Please come to the discussion table on points that concern you; and drop the personal attacks; we can work on bettering the article politely. Joefaust (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

==That forum is highly karma-controlled to keep a very narrow POV about paragliding. A polite presence ever on topic by several experts get downed in that forum; there is censorship of topic titles; there is a movement to "basement" for talks on rational topics that are simply not pulling the status quo of some commercial interests there; the moderator team allows a huge stream of vulgarity, name-calling, and off-topic smear of rational topics that affect paragliding safety and paraglider design; in no way does that forum allow rationale consensus for a robust view of paragliding. For you to direct such a narrow view fits your use of "rubbish" and "defacement" when you edit on this article, when in clear fact your edits have been promoting a very narrow view of commercial sport paragliding, which is just one branch of paragliding. By your call to have that forum be ruler proves that maybe you should step aside from this article. Instead of pointing to a very narrowized over-controlled forum, please stay to wider NPV referencing and enlarge past the single-type Jalbert sort sector; there is much more to paragliding than is yet shown to date by your editing. Let's cooperate to get a clear referenced robust article. Joefaust (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious neglect of "paraglider" categorization and branches

The paraglider is definitely not just the Jalbert ram-air wing culture; that is one branch of the paraglider; there are firm mechanical branches of paraglider that stream into aviation of its beginning to now that are strictly not Jalbert ram-air parafoiled kite-glider wings. The patent system still streams with the solid non-Jalbert-parafoil paragliders. We do serious injustice in a narrow POV article that serves only one of the branches of paraglider used in aviation; the contemporary manufacturers of the fully-limp Jalbert parafoiled wings have a lot to gain to keep the narrow POV going in this article. David Barish did not use the Jalbert parafoil; rather he used the single-skin partial second surfaced airfoil wing to do free-flight-kite gliding that forms a branch of paragliding. NASA very starkly used framed paragliders for manned and unmanned paragliding. Tony Prentice in 1960 importantly made and used a string-controlled free-flight framed paraglider. The full branch of paragliding that uses the Rogallo Wing parawing paraglider is also definitely not a Jalbert ram-air paraglider. The stream of patents in the world that still use "paraglider" as the proper term for boomed (inflated and sticked) sailed gliders is strongly part of the fertile core of what a paraglider is. Not all hang glider are paragliders, but a very large segment of hang gliders are paragliders. Mechanically, it is rawly recognized by many experts that the string-controlled free-gliding kite system (payload or human body as resistive anchor, tether set, and kite wing)is a parachute-like-glider system, thus para-glider or paraglider; such terms and recognition was in the roots of aviation, teased into existence by the strong influencing book by Woglom in 1800s with "parakites" Parakites by Woglom as the rooting term; just have the anchor be free-falling rather than a moving human hand running or tree swaying. To let the one branch of current manufactures try to wipe out the rich fullness of paragliding for their own purpose of fast sales and profit is to cheat the readers of the world of robust paragliding opportuniy. Editors are invited to fully know and integrate a much more accurate presentation of paragliding than exists in the article of Sept. 2011. One editor in particular keeps carving out his POV that supports the narrow POV about paragliding to the unfortunate neglect of the richer fuller story of paragliding; he uses impolite language in this discussion space to rashly slam some of the other editors as progress evolves. That editor is asked to deal with a neutral stance and quite forcing the article to serve just the narrow Jalbert parafoil commercial sector; that editor seems not to know that both historically and contemporaneously that the limp string-controlled Jalbert wing used for free-flight kite gliding is firmly a sector of hang gliding, a true proper subset of hang gliding, whereas hang gliding encloses some non-paraglider systems. There is much work to be done on this article, if we are going to serve the world's readers with a neutral encyclopedic presentation of paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Idea: Form a separate article called Paragliding (sport)

Paragliding properly encompasses a very wide range of vehicles over wide scales and for very many purposes. One of the purposes and activities in that large space is the activity of single or two persons foot launching for sport and recreation which is "sport paragliding". To distinguish "sport paragliding" from toy unmanned paragliding, from UAV military paragliding, scientific paragliding, industrial paragliding, etc, perhaps an article dedicated to "Sport paragliding" would serve encycopedia readers. Already some editors have noted that the present article is moving to be an instruction how to guide which is not for Wikipedia, but more for Wikiuniversity. At some point the energy of editors to put all that sport paragliding into this general article on "Paragliding" will injure the article's value. Moving to secondary articles and to Wikiuniversity, etc. seems to be the direction needed. This present article should stay encyclopedic of "Paragliding" and do a good job at it. A good job for "Sport Paragliding" would best fit in a dedicated article. Joefaust (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has been started: Paragliding (sport). It is open to advance WP mature contributions on the sector of Paragliding that is sport. A shorter section in this present article on Sport paragliding could use the template for main-article pointing to point to Paragliding (sport). In that main article Paragliding (sport) there will be natural sections that forward sport paragliding. Differently, in this article on Paragliding there will be room for many non-sport paragliding activities manned and unmanned: Military paragliding, photography-based paragliding, energy-production paragliding, surveillance paragliding, entertainment paragliding, physical fitness recreation paragliding, historical paragliding, unmanned toy paragliding, etc. And the main article Paragliding will become fruitful to guide readers to Paragliding (commerce), Paragliding fatalities, Hang gliding fatalities, Kite types as paragliders are a kite type and paragliding is a type of kiting, and much more. This article Paragliding is needed, I hold, by WP to serve the world with a grand panorama of encyclopedic articles where paragliding is robustly present. No original research; all sourced to noteworthy reliable sources! Verifiable. Right now sport paragliding takes up all the space of a key noun and is presently blocking the rich WP tree of service. The sport editors now have Paragliding (sport) to showcase well the sport of paragliding; go for it. Joefaust (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has been deleted by WP admins. It should never have been started until this discussion reaches a consensus. In addition, it consisted of little else than a repetition of Joe's views about PG dangers and a single link to a commercial page where you could order a book. Jontyla (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for a week to stop the edit warring. Both versions look flawed to me--IP is removing sourced information, but the previous version contains numbers in brackets and no corresponding reference, improper direct links to outside webpages, etc. You all need to stop fighting and discuss the issue here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one side of paragliding is allowed to be presented here. Honest discussion and proper citations are vandalized. It is not sufficient to tell people to stop fighting. The history is very clear that opinion is being enforced to the detriment of impartial observation. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia that it has tolerated for years the minimization of dangers and removal of citations verifying the fact that paragliding has significant risk. It is, in fact, dishonest to present a heavily-weighted fun side while removing information that there are serious problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopara (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect the Paragliding article. You or someone just obliterated some 20 hours of work with references. Thank you. And by the choice to overwrite my work instead of freezing at that point seems to show a choice that does not fit Wikipedia guides. Jontly (?) did not come to discuss; he did damages without signing, I suspect that was he. The article is severely with a narrow point of view. Much work is urged to do justice to "paragliding" way beyond the interests of just a few current sellers of sport paragliding wings. Paragliding is a large topic; readers deserve neutral point of view, not just a sales push of sport paragliding. There is a need for two more articles: Sport paragliding and one for the machine Paraglider. And contesht on the how to do sport paragliding belongs in Wikiuniversity. Is this note better here in your talk or below your note in the article's Discussion; thanks for tutoring me on this question; I don't not which place is most polite or most fit. Thanx. Unsigner 88.23.255.168 (talk) had been asked to talk; he did not; he just now twice obliterated progress. And you froze at his second wipe out to the narrow POV; the article went back to the small; we are after NPOV for the large picture. Please undo the freeze; freeze for a week at the larger work, not the smaller. Joefaust (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy the response I gave on my talk page: I protected the article because several of you were edit warring over the content of the article. When admins fully protect because of a dispute, they don't look at the content and decide which is "correct"; admins have no special "vote" over how to make an article correct. The fact that the current version is the one I protected is not an endorsement of that version. Again, the only reason for full protection is to prevent people from just warring back and forth, and, instead, compel actual discussion on the article's talk page. I recommend that you start doing so; if the other parties refuse to discuss the issue, then I will prod them to do so. In fact, I'll actually go do that now. You may need to use our dispute resolution process if you can't solve the problem yourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: If, after 3 or 4 days, the IP refuses to come and discuss the issue, I will unprotect the article and you can revert back to the other version, and I'll then view the IPs reversions as edit warring. Again, please understand that I am not endorsing or opposing the current version. Both version look highly problematic to me, given that neither version was particularly well sourced. But if the IP won't actually discuss the changes, then it looks like consensus will support the other version. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia allows the creation of new pages, indeed the very nature of the concept promotes the idea. If this user feels the description of "Paragliding" does not fit his view, however minor that view may be, then he is free to create new pages such as he suggests: "Sport Paragliding", "Paragliding History", "Paragliding Safety", etc. A quick search of the OED, or any dictionary, would provide one with a description similar to that which has been on this page for nearly 10 years. If I may be blunt for a moment. It seems a little peculiar that after so many years with this page having contents that the majority of paraglider pilots seem happy with, that he suddenly wishes to change a vast proportion of it. It does rather smack of arrogance on his part, or some kind of attempt to lay down his minority view upon the rest of us. It's just not cricket, if you take my point. He can go ahead and put his view down on paper, as it were, just do it where it truly belongs. 88xxxx (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Just another small point to note. I am a paraglider pilot and as such do not live in a city with a permanent internet connection. We pilots tend to live in the countryside, it's where we do our flying. If this on-line discussion thing is to be taken to its conclusion and the administrators wish to be just, you might have to bear with me. The dial up connection is rather slow and I cannot sit in front of this in-damnable computer every evening, I'm sure you understand. 88xxxx (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing if this page has been accepted by the majority of paraglider pilots. You can't revert an article to an older state just because you don't like it; you need to provide specific reasons that are wrong with the changes. Wikipedia articles can and should change over time. As I said before, alot of this article, in both versions, is unsourced and thus questionable, so it definitely needs to be improved. Finally, if this is the broad, large topic, it should cover all of the different types of paragliding (whatever those are) in brief; then we can make specific articles that expand more fully on each sub-topic.

Maybe, though, I should start somewhere a little more concrete--we're not going to get anywhere just saying "all of those changes are bad" or "they're all necessary". How about we start discussing something specific--that is, start with one specific thing that someone thinks needs to be changed. Someone propose a specific change to the article as written now--I think, for example, that there was a specific concern about covering paragliding deaths. Could somebody explain what they want to say regarding this specific point, and see if we can establish a consensus on this, part by part? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are completely correct when you say I cannot know if this page has been accepted by the majority of paraglider pilots, but I think history has borne witness to the fact that 100,000+ paraglider pilots have, over the past 10 years or so, left it as-is or helped to fine-tune it into the page it was. What a shame to lose that collective work thanks to the craftsmanship of just one or two outcasts in our sport, of course, I cannot speak for all pilots when I say this. Moving forward then. I would agree wholeheartedly with your pragmatic approach to dealing with their change requests. As you suggest, paragliding accident and fatality statistics would be a reasonable place to start. If we can see some concrete statistics with valid citations to the National Associations regarding accidents and deaths in our sport then perhaps we would be on the right path. Unfortunately, up to now we have not seen such data, we have simply seen opinion offered via links to private websites. This might help explain why several pilots are visiting this page and reverting the changes. 88xxxx (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You have zero evidence for the notion that 100,000 paraglider pilots have viewed this article, much less edited it.....but...I'll start a new section on the death statistics. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

88xxxx states "If we can see some concrete statistics with valid citations to the National Associations regarding accidents and deaths in our sport then perhaps we would be on the right path. Unfortunately, up to now we have not seen such data, we have simply seen opinion offered via links to private websites." This is not true. Global fatality data is presented with hyper-linked citations to news reports at http://www.cometclones.com

All references and citations of medical journals reporting an excessive number of paragliding spinal injuries were deleted from this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&diff=452207939&oldid=452207100 All references and citations to reports of paragliding fatalities (example 2009) were deleted from this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&diff=359109479&oldid=359107379 This has been going on for years. I find it reprehensible that people come to Wikipedia to investigate paragliding but are unknowingly denied an objective look at both sides of the issue. Some who decide to pursue the sport based on what is allowed to be presented by the sport enthusiasts who censor content may make that decision without critical information. This could result in their being maimed or killed. It is an ethical obligation to fairly present both sides. You talk about the ideal that Wikipedia articles should evolve with new information or improved style. Consider that no tally of global paragliding fatalities was assembled prior to Rick Masters' effort beginning in 2008. Only a few national organizations were reporting some of their members' incidents and leaving outside visitors who were injured or killed to be added to their own country's accident gathering apparatus - if one existed. The result was an under-reported mess that paragliding enthusiasts seized upon to offer the opinion, blatantly promoted on Wikipedia, that paragliding is much safer than it really is. What in the world could possibly be wrong with pointing readers to a referenced list of over 800 paragliding deaths and hundreds of crippling injuries in less than a decade? Wikipedia editors have for years called out for more referenced material. Well, here is some and it's ugly. But that doesn't mean anyone has a right to keep it from being used. It's not research. It's not statistics. It's a list. A simple ugly list that sport paragliding enthusiasts do not want to see or see referenced in Wikipedia. I hope the mature editors who understand a neutral POV will recognize the significance and ethical consequences of this issue. Nopara (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Death statistics

Some users have advocated the inclusion of death statistics. 88xxxx objects that the source isn't from a National Association. Of course, that isn't a requirement for Wikipedia--our question is whether or not the source is reliable per WP:RS. So, what source do people want to use regarding the death statistics, and what do you want the article to say? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not here addressing all the pertinent issues implied by your interest, but just one: I urge the distinction between initial data points of fact from the forming of statistics from the body of raw data points. I am not an expert mathematical statistician; my background includes a bachelor's degree in pure mathematics in which I had to take several statistics courses, including a course in mathematical statistics, biological statistics, and statistics for physics. The cornerstone act of collecting data points under some focus is a bare start of statistical analysis. The heavier analysis can be done by good or poorly prepared statisticians for resonant results; their work would massage raw data and even examine how the data was collected. Doing no collection of data gives no starting point. Doing data collection with some described method is neither good nor bad, but stands for whatever it is; analysis over the nature of the collected data and the data itself comes later and hopefully with quality trained mathematical statistical tools and tool-using abilities. In paragliding, as you well noted, WP does not require that collectors of data points or facts be by an organization, and for good reason; organizations sometimes can be the worst offenders if conflict of interest is involved over the matter in focus. Let anyone collect data points and have such be as verifiable as possible with as much description as workers might forward; analysis can deal with anything that shows up. Joefaust (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Changed "are" to "all" in first sentence.Joefaust (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Then we look at the reality. Right now there is just exactly one entity that is collecting best data points for the fatalities of paragliding; he does it better than any national org; he is striving to collect the data points with several methods. He does not run fancy statistical tools over the raw data, as he is not an expert statistician; he is a collector of raw data points; he is getting skilled at describing how the data counts are incomplete and bringing forward notes about those incompletion processes of which he is becoming aware. A first level of very primitive statistics is to simply tally under described categories; he is making an attempt at that. And noteworthy in the world of sport paragliding, he yet has no other entity doing as complete a job as he is doing. Mr. Rick Masters. His personal interpretation prose, aerodynamic comments, and asides should not prejudice appreciating the data-point collection and tally under defined categories; if he tallys incorrectly, anyone can tell him and he will count again: 1, 2, 3,...,67, etc. No problem. Those wanting derivatives and denominators and advanced analysis are welcome to use his counts with their own denominators for dervived statistics. But preventing the noteworthy counts from being known serves no good purpose. In that light I started the article of Paragliding fatalities and injurious incidents where noteworthy and referenced matter may be in focus on the subject. Any sport paragliding article would do well to have a clear link to the article, especially after the article matures. When noteworthy statisticians mull and massage the raw data with denominators, then the more value will be in the encyclopedic article. If collection of the raw data can be improved, then that would be great. Joefaust (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Joefaust (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow the collection of raw data, I'm reviewing that article now but a heck of a lot of it has got to go, without a doubt. Who is this Rick Masters? Is he someone recognized as an expert in the field? If so, please provide reliable sources that support him being an expert (that would be sources fully and completely independent of him, that meet WP:RS, that explicitly state that he is an expert in the field). If he is not, his website may not be used as a source in Wikipedia per WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources are best reliable sources to fit the context of the article. The article is about fatalities; the people die in an accident; reliable newspapers and concern clubs say that John died in an accident; best reliable reference is being referenced; in context such is noteworthy and at the highest possible quality that can be reached by the reporting societies involved. The WP standards are being met. The noteworthy reference points are almost all outside of Rick's site; any editor could posted better reference if they would. The article is not making or collecting, but rather stating and referencing important facts that match the subject of the article. Each reference up for your attention for change should first be discussed on merits for WP quality. Blanket wipe off of the article's core content and its references is against the intent of the encyclopedic article. The article is exactly about fatalities and injurious incidents. Rick has decades of experience in paragliding cultures. He has flown paraglider hang gliders for decades. He is a keen author, observer and has proven expert in the eyes of the editor of Hang Glder Magazine and Low & Slow Magazine. Since Rick is not a expert statistician, he is not on even his own site doing advance statistical analysis. WP does not require that everyone be top of the mountain to contribute worthy works for articles. Joefaust (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And, after gutting that other article, I have to say if you are trying to add similar information to this article, Joefaust, I'm highly worried. That other article was basically some data in the middle, which is fine, surrounded by your own opinions, analysis, etc., which is not, per WP:OR. Be sure that as you work out things on this article, you adhere to our core policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is just getting started; it is a few days in the making; we have years to go on that article and invite editors from around the world to help mature the article. The referenced data will fill out each year as editors write the article. Admin and editors are supposed to give time for an article to get started. I invite you not to mess with the article without discussing point by point. If you find a better expert than Rick or myself for the article, please get them going on the article's topic; I will do the same. The article is worthy of being in WP; I will work to polish and mature the article. Joefaust (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm seeing the problem: you are fundamentally not understanding WP:RS. No one can ever say "This is true, because I'm an expert." Your own personal qualifications mean nothing here on Wikipedia, because 1) we have no way of verifying if they are true or not, and 2) Wikipedia long ago made the decision that while we appreciate expert input, we still require all information to come from reliable sources. So (leaving aside the other article--let's discuss that over there), do you have any evidence to show that Rick Masters' site meets the requirements of WP:RS? In general, self-published sites are not allowed as reliable sources. The only exception is when the person is widely recognized as an expert in the field. To show such an exception is warranted, you're going to need to produce other reliable sources that verify that Masters is an expert, unambiguously and clearly. If you can't, then it's not a reliable source, and it can't be used to verify info here on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is raised "Is Rick Masters an expert (on foot-launched free-flight)?"

• 1981: COMPETITION Chief Timer and Emergency Medical Technician for the Owens Valley XC Classic, Qualifier and Open competitions
• 1982: 1) FILMMAKING U.S. Gray Prize for the best media work in hang gliding (for the documentary film "Aoli, Comet Clones & Pod People); 2) JOURNALISM "End of a Legend - George Worthington's Last Ride", Glider Rider, USA 11/82; Airborne, NZ 10/82; Skysailor, Australia 10/82; 3)"The Valley, the Wings and the Challenge", Wings, UK 5/82; "The Land God Forgot", Wings, UK 6/82; "The Paths Diverge", Wings, UK 7/82
• 1983: FILMMAKING U.S. Gray Prize for the best media work in hang gliding shared with Steve Moyes; TRAINING Special Observer, United States Hang Gliding Association; JOURNALISM "Racing for the Record - 221 Miles Without An Engine!", Whole Air Magazine, USA 9/83; Glider Rider, USA 12/83; Wings, UK 10/83; Drachenflieger, Germany 11/83; HanGlider, Japan 12/83;
• 1984: TRAINING & COMPETITION President and founding director of the Cross Country Pilots Association (XCPA); Organizer of the USHGA sanctioned Owens Valley XC competitions from Mazourka Peak; Host to Smithsonian Air & Space Museum curator Russell E. Lee during 2-weeks of competition.
• 1985: TRAINING & COMPETITION President, XCPA; Meet Director, Don Partridge Memorial Open and George Worthington Memorial Classic (Gunter, Mazourka, Cerro Gordo, Horseshoe Meadows); XC DISTANCE FLIGHT of 120 miles
• 1986: XC DISTANCE FLIGHT of 178 miles
• 1987: JOURNALISM "Explorations with the Thermal Snooper", Soaring, USA 8/87; Hang Gliding, USA 7/87; Drachenfleiger, Germany 10/87; XC DISTANCE FLIGHTS of 155, 118, 107, 102 miles

Sources http://www.cometclones.com Nopara (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. It rather seems these two chaps are failing to grasp or understand the advice of the wiki mediator, Qwyrxian, as they seem unable to grasp what constitutes a valid citation or reference. I don't fully understand the wikipedia definition, but I would think a list of titles defining Mr Masters as an expert is far from credible if the referenced source is Mr Masters "cometclones" website. 88xxxx (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You could use a library. Nopara (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not see myself ever having indicated rightness for my expertise within WP editing work over the last many years. My expertise will let me discern holes to be filled with verifiable statements and discern steps to make to bring forward to the reader strong references beyond my expertise. WP:RS is honored by my habit in WP. A verifiable statement: "dogs are animals" can sit for some time; it may or may not need a reference set, as long as it is verifiable; WP would be overburdened if every single statement needed a reference written. Am I wrong on this? When a source is used, a contest might arise about the reliability of the source; that could well be an important process. The FAI, e.g. can be proved to allow untrue statements subsist in their award process; but that does not mean they change the statements that are false; that the FAI has shown itself to allow untrue statement sit lowers my trust of the FAI; yet for some context the FAI is held as a reliable source. Orgs have conflicts of interest relative to matters that have a potential to hurt the organization; for some purposes and topics, orgs are to be seriously questioned as to reliability. Joefaust (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the "US Gray Prize"? WP doesn't have an article on that, and I don't see anything relevant in a Google web search. Masters' records as a pilot do not make him an expert in the sense required by WP (just like we wouldn't include a blog by Tom Cruise as "expert" information about acting). The other publications you sight: are those articles written by Masters, or about Masters? Only the latter will help answer the question of whether or not he is an expert. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All the articles are presented in their entirety with magazine covers, indexed on the URL. The Gray Prize is explained on a photo from a newspaper on the URL page. The only genuine question is "Are there any adults here?" Wikipedia should be embarrassed by this farce. Nopara (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me Wikipedia are taking a very pragmatic approach to this. Nopara & Joefaust have decided to completely change the contents of a page that has been slowly developing and maturing for some 10 years or so. When those changes were rolled back to remove the editing by many different people all claiming they were effectively defacing it, the Wikipedia administrator, Qwyrxian, simply stepped in to stop it continuing ad infinitum. And quite rightly so if you ask me. He seems to have asked a few very reasonable requests that simply revolve around the question of Nopara & Joefaust backing up their change requests with valid citations and references. Something which, until now, they appear to unable to do. 88xxxx (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to clarify 2 things: First, I still want answers to my question--I shouldn't have to hunt down through a big website to scour through a bunch of unrelated documents to figure out what Joefaust (and presumably Nopara) already seem to know. If I have time, I'll try to look at the site, but it won't be tonight for sure. And regarding 88xxxx's comment, I want to be very clear that I did not place full protection on the article to preserve the older version. In fact, it is the purest chance that that is the version I protected. All I wanted to do was to stop the back and forth changes, because that is damaging to our readers. I honestly have zero opinion about which version is better. And you all need to sort that out--I'm merely trying to advise regarding policies and procedures (which is why I asked the questions above). This means that you too, 88xxxx, need to keep talking--you're not allowed to revert back to an older version simply because it has been around for a while. Ultimately, we need to decide together (and maybe need to get other editors involved) what to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, fully understand and very much appreciate your impartiality in this. Qwyrxian. Without it, it rather seems this paragliding wiki page would simply be a list of deaths, accidents and non-paragliding related wing information, or so it would seem. Hence the roll-back of specific changes made by users No-Para (there may be a clue in the username here) and joefaust. This is why we are here, to try and stop these two chaps from totally re-working the page and misrepresenting the sport we love so much. We are not trying to freeze it in any way, we just feel that their changes end with a total misrepresentation of our sport. If they wish to add their changes we would like them to do so with properly qualified citations and references and they seem unable to do this. If we do not require this, we will end up, just as before, with a page full of opinion, bias and link upon link to private websites that are neither accurate or complete, and certainly not up to Wikipedia's usual standard of citation/reference. I see no list of motoring deaths on the wiki page for automobiles or driving nor a link to a page containing such deaths, So it only seems natural that us paraglider pilots would wish to protest such on this page. A quick visit to the incomplete, uncited collection of links on Paragliding_fatalities_and_injurious_incidents will show what these users consider to be valid "data". 88xxxx (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

NoPara wrote: The question is raised "Is Rick Masters an expert (on foot-launched free-flight)?"

That's rather weasel worded. The "(on foot launched free flight)" rather than Paragliding or Paragliding Safety is there because Rick is, as I understand it, a hang glider pilot rather than a paraglider pilot and judging by his posts on parglidingforum.com and the ozreport (a HG forum) he has a pathological hatred of paragliders. One may speculate that he is nopara in this discussion - the fact that his user name itself suggests an opposition to paragliders may be a hint. In no way is he a recognised expert in the field of paraglider safety (or free flight safety) and is not impartial.

My reason for reverting the edits of Joe and NoPara was because they lack balance. Safety is discussed in the old article and the fact that paragliding can be dangerous is covered. This coverage is similar to that in other adventure sports articles on WP (and much more detailed already than some) and gives a balanced view. The changes proposed by Joe and NoPara destroy that balance, I believe deliberately, which is why I referred to them as defacement.

The problem isn't sourcing (though their sources are dubious), the problem is the same as if they added a series of photos of the mangled bodies of people who have just died paragliding. There would be no discussion about sourcing (assuming the photos were genuine), but so what? Their effect would be to create a negative emotional reaction and destroy neutrality. It is right that safety is discussed, it is wrong to use shock tactics to push an agenda.

I believe that my views above would be echoed by the vast majority of the paragliding community, and that Joe and NoPara's views are very far from the mainstream. Joe gets such a rough ride on paraglidingforum.com, not because of some conspiracy, but because he fails to get support for his position and then fails to accept the fact. Rick was (I believe) banned from it for similar reasons. If this edit debate came down to a straight question of "what does the PG community think", then it would be easy enough to get people within the community to come to this talk page and express an opinion. I'm pretty confident which side they would support.

Jontyla (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: Jontyla, the article is not about your personal forum flows. The article does not have essential space for your beliefs or mine per se. The article is not about someone's "view" on this or that matter. The article is to be about Paragliding. The article is not to be a collection of opinions; rather verifiable and resourced knowledge that gives the reader a sensible view of Paragliding in its noteworthy dimensions and aspects. The reader should not be cheated by shorting the text of noteworthy sectors of Paragliding. A mature article probably could have a section on "Controversies in sport paragliding" along with good statements and good resources that supply information on the sides of the controversies; but even such section is to follow WP guides of NPOV about those controversies; noteworthy views would be given presence via a NPOV presentation; hiding any particular noteworthy side of a controversy would violate NPOV guide. The article is not a place where just your view or anyone else's view of "balance" rides. Joefaust (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why we are here joefaust. You and Rick are filling this page with your opinion and we would like it stopped. 88xxxx (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: I notice that Jontyla comments are exclusively on sport paragliding. There is an article in WP: Paragliding (sport) where focus can be developed on the sport sector of paragliding. The meta article Paragliding would do well to have a section in it for "sport" sector and then link to the main sport article. Such would leave Paragliding open to all sectors of paragliding including the sport sector; each non-sport sector of paragliding is open to having an a main dedicated article on it. Paragliding (commerce); Paragliding (military); Paragliding (equipment); Paragliding (sport harnesses); Paragliding (aerobatics); Paragliding (aerodynamics); Paragliding (wing types); Paragliding (sport contests); Paragliding fatalities; Paragliding (surveillance); Paragliding (launch methods); and other related noteworthy sectors of paragliding. A matured encyclopedia would not neglect noteworthy paragliding sectors that use the gliding-kite system paraglider. Other noteworthy sectors of paragliding are extant and are noteworthy. Joefaust (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jontyla wrote that it would be easy to get a consensus from the paraglider pilot community, and I wholeheartedly agree that it would. At the time of writing, the "paraglidingforum" is a forum of 22,354 worldwide pilots, and one would only need to start an online poll asking which version of the Wikipedia definition best defined paragliding. The poll would, I can assure you, be overwhelmingly against these two chaps changes. This, however, would place us in the same position as before, a worldwide community of pilots opposed to specific changes to this page as proposed by these two users who, after several years, have failed to convince the community of there ideas, and have now turned their attention to the Wikipedia definition of our sport. It makes me wonder what the Wikipedia policy is for a page that is likely to be continually edited by a user, or users, who are unable to be convinced that they are a tiny minority and do not represent a sport, and who's ideas are at 90 degrees to mainstream thinking. 88xxxx (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Luckily (or unluckily) for us, such a poll would have absolutely zero bearing on what we would include in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and doesn't make decisions based on the votes of people involved in a subject. However, we do care about issues like neutrality and reliable sourcing. Let's just stay focused. At this point, I'm inclined to say that once the protection expires, what should happen is that the recent set of changes should be reverted. Then, carefully, one at a time, Joefaust (or others) can make one change, or propose the change here on the talk page, and then see if there is consensus for that small change. Part of the problem right now is that there is so much changed so quickly that it's very hard to make any sort of coherent statements about specifics. However, we're starting to make a tiny bit of progress on death statistics, and it sounds like perhaps we don't have a single, good, reliable source for those statistics; we may need to site multiple sources (though we cannot just site several hundred individual sources like was done at the other article). I'll try to look at those articles on Masters later, though, just to confirm. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say there are quite a lot of accident statistics out there from reliable sources. Most of the larger countries where paragliding takes place (Europe is where most of the world's pilots are) have large National Associations that collect accident reports and are more often than not published annually, although they will never be complete or completely accurate as some accidents go unreported. It is simply that no-one, to my knowledge, has ever collated what is available to try and produce a global picture and/or statistic. Perhaps we should. The recent changes to this wiki page are, by contrast, linking to a website which is the result of someone's excessive searching (Googling?) of news articles. Or to those news articles themselves. Unfortunately, as we are not a mainstream sport, when an accident occurs it is often reported incorrectly. In fact we have seen paragliding accidents reported as hangglider accidents, or vice versa, or reported as parasailing accidents (towing behind a boat for tourists). The mainstream media, quite understandably, have some difficulty determining the true details of such accidents from the little information they get and I'm not sure I would expect them to know the difference anyway. The result of such "Googling" is not what I would expect to see referred to as "data" or "statistics", and I would hope you would agree. Likewise, the textual changes to the page were often outlandish statements written by a user who is believing that their own "list of links" is statistical data. Which, in my opinion, it is not. 88xxxx (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT. There are many parts to the site by the researcher at CometClones; the controversies surrounding one part do not logically bear on the controversies of the other parts; an error of associating the merits of one section with the other commits a non sequitor situation. The sector of that site that lists the actual fatalities is or is not the most comprehensive list available in the world for worldwide coverage; that section of the site can be used by anyone for statistical analysis; that section gives foundation data; and that data is improved upon by anyone in the world providing improved data (this matter has been tested; try it yourself; send that researcher a source for a fact that pertains that is yet missing and watch to see if that data point gets incorporated). The sport section of paragliding within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders; I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better; I am completely open to find a better. Joefaust (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The cometclones website is a platform for an opinion. The bulk of its information are links to news articles alongside the opinion of its owner, an opinion he is fully entitled to have. I work for a Europe-wide Scientific Agency and for some reason we are not the laughing stock of the business we are in, but then we do not rely on news articles for our information and then refer to it as data. 88xxxx (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

joefaust: "I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better". That's the spirit. Keep searching and when you find something that meets the criteria for WP, add it to this page. Until then, expect some resistance from those who have, and uphold, standards. 88xxxx (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change

Unfortunately I have a feeling that coming to a consensus is going to be a bit tricky without someone willing to act as a referee. However, in the spirit of compromise, I propose the following modified wording of the end of the Safety section:

As always, fatalities and freak accidents can occur, but most properly-trained, responsible pilots risk only minor injuries, such as twisted ankles. For example, for one of the largest paragliding nations, France, the fatality rate is around 30 per 100,000 per year, which is typical for adventure sports. This compares with 9 per 100,000 for road traffic accidents in the same country and is somewhat less than for hang gliding and significantly lower than for general aviation, so while it would not be true to say that paragliding is completely safe, the risks are of the same order as many other activities.

The figure 30 for 100000 comes from the citation "0.3 pour mille". The 'typical' comes from the same source "socialement admis dans des activités de plein air forcément à risques" and I've seen it elsewhere also. The 9 per 100000 comes from 87.9 per million in the French article. The 'somewhat less than for HG' comes from the same FFVL study. The 'lower than GA' is a little more problematic. The cited article gives around 1 death per 100,000 hours but doesn't directly quote the average number of hours per person per year. However, one of the tables gives an average of 57 hours in the last 90 days, so the annual figure must be several times that, which gives an accident rate much higher than PG.

All these figures are consistent with those generally come across and those from the same sources for other years.

Jontyla (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Paragliding Forum people know for a fact that most national organizations, including France's, don't list non-nationals in their fatality or accident statistics, but in their concerted effort to maintain a happy face on paragliding they continually present (across the Web) these national organization totals as national totals (which are MUCH larger). The true national totals are often difficult to find but one attempt has been made to compile a global referenced list at Mythology of the Airframe with a global total at 850+ since 2002. Even a number half that size would present a great challenge to the happy-face claims in Wikipedia Paragliding. Furthermore, roughly half of the referenced articles describe sail deformation or collapse, regardless of the skill level of the pilot. This flies in the face of the "most accidents are due to pilot error" happy-face claims in Wikipedia Paragliding. Paragliding also has the highest spinal injury rate of any sport in the world. However, references to medical journals, as well as fatality and injury reports are always removed (see history). If Wikipedia believes in a neutral point of view, it needs to provide both sides of the story to serve as a credible source. Nopara (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

France's controlling body, the FFVL, lists only their members in their statistics but includes accidents that happened to their members while overseas. That, and the fact that anyway most French pilots fly most of their time in France where they will be informed by the authorities of any fatalities, make their statistics particularly useful and accurate. They compare the number of their members who have an accident with the total number of their members. If they included non members (eg international visitors) then their statistics would be very inaccurate and show a distorted picture. Because they are the largest PG nation their dataset is also the most statistically significant Jontyla (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you still haven't indicated if you are Rick Masters or not. Jontyla (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP has no need for personal real names of contributors; WP needs verifiable knowledge and reliable sources. Do you want your personal name up and your personal life up in WP, Jontyla? Joefaust (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My real name is very easy to find via these posts and paraglidingforum (where real names are required). The significance of NoPara's identity is that if he is Rick then his citing his own web site as if it belonged to a third person is rather dubious. It would also mean that NoPara has little or no paragliding experience and a strong bias towards hang gliding. I also note in passing that you (Joe) have a background of commercial involvement in hang gliding, which you didn't disclose when NoPara was suggesting (falsely) that other editors (such as myself) have vested interests that were motivating us to make changes to this page. Jontyla (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree the National Associations statistics are not accurate and should not be put on the paragliding page, I imagine that's why they never have been. More importantly, what is under debate is the fact that the numbers that have been added to this page, and the links that have been used, are based on mainstream news reports which are highly inaccurate , much more so than those collated by pilots via their Associations. The same can be said of the wildly biased opinions that have been written based on these reports. 88xxxx (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

An article may source the statements of national orgs. An article may state and source figures from non-orgs. Giving reliable support for your several "accurate" and "inaccurate" claims might prove difficult; is the reader just to believe anything a contributor says? Maybe one of the national org figures are accurate; maybe one national org has high quality statisticians operating over raw data to come up with some statements. Where is the worldwide raw count upon which skilled analysts may work to come up with advanced statistics? A list of names of the pilots could be a starting point; then anyone could count and have a total; and then as further facts past their name and count are known, then further analysis could be made. The least the sport might do is have a single roster of those in the sport who have died in the sport; number crunching and mathematical statistical analysis could grow from the base roster; have at least one best link appended to each named lost person as a bridge to further data. John DoeJoefaust (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• "joefaust" and "no-para": where is your cited data? Qwyrxian, the wiki admin, has told you several times what constitutes acceptable citations for such details and I can only presume (and hope) he will not allow your changes to be reinstated if you do not meet the required standards. 88xxxx (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can only note for myself on your question; I intend to contribute according to WP principles and guides on all matters. Any editor or admin editor may correct any stumble. We will work together to give readers a mature article with best known references for included verifiable matter. Joefaust (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

joefaust: "I intend to contribute according to WP principles and guides on all matters" ... I await with baited breath. I say this because one of the pages you created and filled with links, Paragliding fatalities, is being considered for deletion due to non-conformity to WP standards on several levels, and a large percentage of your changes to this paragliding page were uncited opinion. They were "undone" and are the root cause why we're having this laughable debate, trying to persuade the WP admin, a rational chap who doesn't fly, of your opposition to the entire paragliding community. You say "with best known references", Wikipedia states otherwise. Just to start your next rant off on the right foot, here's the phrase you'll be trashing: "Reliable Sources". 88xxxx (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting and challenging conundrum being presented to the Wikipedia philosophy by this argument. Vested interests who personally benefit from a lack of timely published academic research on an urgent matter concerning life and death issues of a popular activity believe it is important to censure the data that would clearly be used in such published research if it existed. This data is presented with citations from legitimate sources and these sources are attacked. The editors who provide the data are attacked. The independent expert researcher who assembled the data is attacked. Even when the data is presented without comment, it is attacked. The conundrum is this: Is a sensible presentation of reality in Wikipedia precluded by a timely lack of academic research or do circumstances exist where extraordinary procedures must sometimes be implemented? I believe we are witnessing such an extraordinary procedure. Nopara (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

What vested interests? I'm a software engineer, I have no commercial or other ties to the paragliding industry, I'm just a recreational (and competition) flyer. The only official role I have ever had was as a member of the committee of my local club. I have been quite transparent about my identity (unlike yourself). I have nothing to gain by opposing your ranting beyond the satisfactions of trying to defend enlightenment against darkness, at a cost of a significant waste of time that I would much rather employ elsewhere (I'm sure I'm not alone in this). The research about safety does exist, albeit patchily, and I have quoted some of it above. Unfortunately for you it does not support your POV, so you try to pretend it doesn't exist. You create your own set of pseudo data which has no statistical value but significant shock value and you try to get it accepted as a reference on WP so that its shock value can be used to blacken the image of PG. I find this pathetic. Jontyla (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no interesting or challenging conundrum being presented to Wikipedia here, these chaps have thousands upon thousands of pages, many of which must be subject to such disputes. The only issue arising here is that you seem unable to understand the scientific principle. What you would like presented as data is opinion and speculation. This is an encyclopedia Rick, not an online forum or magazine where you can assume to know the truth and publish it. You must present your findings with valid, acceptable citations, otherwise Wikipedia lose credibility. The Wikipedia admin has told you what is acceptable and you cannot do what he asks, because you are wrong. You cannot provide what you have been asked to provide and I sincerely hope the admin will ask you not to post your opinions to this page poorly disguising them as facts. 88xxxx (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggested tweak to the text. Avoid comparison unless the thing being compared to is readily understood or specifically compared in a reference. Trimming it down and atttributing the number to the source gives "The (insert name of organization) for France - one of the largest paragliding nations (assuming this fact is not disputed) - quotes a fatality rate around 30 per 100,000 (clarify flights, members?) per year. The fatality rate for road traffic accidents in France is 9 per 100,000 [2]." GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Change name of article to Paragliding (sport)

Recommended is that a change of name be made to Paragliding (sport) and then have a disambiguation page for the word "Paragliding" whereon will be a collection of pages that for one includeds Paragliding (sport) as well as other articles like Paragliding (history) where the full rich history of NPOV paragliding may be given its encyclopedic due. And then also Paragliding (sport safety issues) could be an article. Also on the disambiguation page will be links to coming other articles: Paragliding (model flying), Paragliding (commerce), Paragliding (surveillance), Paragliding (instruments), Paragliding (safety). However, if the narrow point of view weaves into the other coming articles that sits just in the corner of sport paragliding, then the huge wider world of paragliding will again be kept from readers of Wikipedia. E.g. there are safety issues in scientific paragling, commercial paragliding, military paragliding, toy unmanned paragliding, unmanned weaponized paragliders for military and terrorist issues, etc. Right now, a very narrow part of sport paragliding is being pushed by an editor Jontyla (talk) whose talk on this page has been against Wikipedia politeness standards; that is, not even the broad table of sport paragliding is being permitted presence. Please unfreeze the article and change its name, so readers can have a disambiguation page on "Paragliding" so they may have option to reachn a broader picture. Thank you. Open to talk, unsigner 88xxxx or Jontla and others. What say others? Joefaust (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Wikified to reach a new article which is open for the Paragliding (sport)Joefaust (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia allows the creation of new pages, indeed the very nature of the concept promotes the idea. If you feel the description of "Paragliding" does not fit your own view, however minor that view may be, then you are free to create new pages such as you suggest: "Sport Paragliding", "Paragliding History", "Paragliding Safety", etc. A quick search of the OED, or any dictionary, would provide one with a description similar to that which has been on this page for nearly 10 years. If I may be blunt for a moment. It seems a little peculiar that after so many years with this page having contents that the majority of paraglider pilots seem happy with, that you suddenly wish to change a vast proportion of it. It does rather smack of arrogance on your part, or some kind of attempt to lay down your view upon the rest of us. It's just not cricket, if you take my point. Go ahead, put your view down on paper, as it were, just do it where it truly belongs, old boy. 88xxxx (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was dealing with paraglider research in the 1960s; In the 1970s I made and flew non-paraglider hangglider and also paraglider hang gliders. I was the first publisher in paragliding and founded the first international organization of pilots of paragliders in Self-Soar Association; then I cofounded USHGA and gave myself the sticky number of member #5 and assigned #1 to paraglider pilot-manufacturer Dick Eipper. 218 issues researched, edited, discussed, printed, mailed to subscribers around the world in 23 nations. In early 1970 I conceived and made happen the first seven meets; the first big one had only non-paraglider hang gliders; the other six had in them paraglider hang glders; then we understood that hang glders are of two sorts: paragliders and non-paragliders. A bulky professional history that continues today that has paraglider larger than the commercial core of limp fabric cult should not be hijacked by that recent noteworthy cult in an encyclopedia; a neutral point of view will be open to the fact that the recent cult belong classed well in the larger flow of paragliding, not hijack the rich flow that goes beyond the limp-sail cult of the sport sector.

* Jontyla (edited later for spellin) or ? IP 88xxx, change the name of the article to Paragliding (sport) and you will be more on target; the rise of sport paragliding cannot properly hijack a rich history of paragliding that goes easily into the 1800s onwards; that the tight sector of sport paraglider is popular does not win a logical takeover of "Paragliding" as "paragliding" is far larger than just the current sport sector. That I am recently with focus on sport paragliding and wikipedia, my expertise recently starkly shows me how the hijacking in Wikipedia has happened. If Wikipedia somehow prevents the better ordering of titles, then readers and Wikipedia will lose quality. Do you have an objection to changing the name of this present article to fit more your POV to Paragliding (sport) ? Would you address that question, as I will work toward that in order to have win, win, win: Win for sport paragliding, win for the broader activity of "Paragliding" and a freeing up of the term "Paragliding" for a disambiguation page so that people may find other articles that are being developed. I just started Paraglider to which you are welcome to help on; but do not expect that article to sit and worship just one section of the machine paraglider, as paragliders go way beyond just sport paragliders. Not arrogant, but discerning with expertise and 50 years of background on topic coming to serve as a fellow editor. That many in your apparent camp have a desire for a narrow POV, please help work to get titles to serve the public; Paragliding (sport); Paragliding (science); Paragliding (toy); Paragliding (industry); Paragliding (military), etc. These will need a serving disambiguation page reached by "Paragliding" which should not be reserved for just one volatile and changing sport sector of paragliding. I have no interest in namecalling, sarcasm, warring, personal attacks, rash and demeaning slams, etc. There may or may not be lots of challenges. But as long as a small sector of paragliding prevents clarity for readers to reach the full spectrum of paragliding,then there will be appropriate logical tension. If we stick with this lead article, then there should be sections in it that reach all the other sectors of paragliding which then could branch to other articles. But the introduction would have to then reflect all those sections appropriately and not let one sector create a narrow POV in the introduction. So, one way or another, all of paragliding will be getting attention. Which way do you want to go? Revamp in this article or retitle the article to say Paragliding (sport), so that the meta term can be used for disambiguation? If I am missing a third alternative, please suggest. I deeply reject a small sector hijacking the overriding term; it is understood that sport hang glider people are comfortable in "paragliding" ...no problem in seeing that; the thoughtful ones among those faced with these discerning issues may well concclude...yes, easy, we are sport paragling, so Paragliding (sport) can serve us just fine...and let the big picture be used for disambiguation; in the end the service to the big picture will have trickle-down good effect on all sectors. All types of readers win with a better encyclopedia; that is the goal of Wikipedia. What say you? Thanks for talking 88 Jontla. I see you are a member of a big sports forum of which I also belong; properly so, the flow of that forum is sport paragliding with its narrow interests; no problem; that fact should not hijack a bigger paragliding world than the sport sector. Joefaust (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't follow much of that last tranche of text and I don't know why you are accusing me of name-calling and referring to me as John or Johnster-88, or whatever, it's not my name and, unfortunately, it has rather clouded any point you were trying to get across, or any question you may have buried in there. You seem to be trying to include all sorts of flying equipment as a paraglider when a quick flick through any modern dictionary will tell the reader that a paraglider is a wing that us pilots fly. If you intend to reclassify kites or toy wings as paragliders then perhaps you need a quick reality check, as what you are suggesting is akin to including in the description of an automobile the 3-inch metal toys that children play with. 88xxxx (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 88. Are you also the J___la person or not, spelling above who used "rubbish" so many times? Are you that person or not? What is your name? We know you as IP 88xxx and could look up the IP again, but IPs can change depending on the library one uses. Your timing, text, manner did seem to me that 88 xxx just might be the Jontyla (spell, I do not see it while in this edit field); as the La___ person of Pg forum as you; are you? Does not matter. Let's talk on points of the article. Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, my typo means that you will not read my talk input? Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As to model and toy paragliders: They are real, exist, and are being flown, patented, described and are included in many discourses as important for manned paragliders. And small unmanned paragliders are considered for very serious tasks, not to demean the toy value which is important in society. It is appropriate ina meta article on paragliding to face the important world of toy and model and scaled paragliders, manned and unmanned pargliders, paragliders of stripes big and small. I am not trying to bring in any novel matter; I want to bring in the real world of paragliders that goes beyond the corner in which you claim your personal sector; I fully care that sport paragliding along your experience is represented; but you are not experiencing apparently even much of sport paragliding, just your personal portions; there is more than the limited paraglider experience of your experience. The task of the meta article on paragliding is to give the description of the rich world of paragliding. Your repeated emphasis does seem to argue well for having an article on Paragliding (sport); and if this present article stays the meta article, then the article hereon will have much more than sport paragliding and the introduction by WP standards will need to be updated as the article matures to do a good job on the wider picture of paragliding Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Could we get some reliable secondary sources that claim either way what the definition of paragliding/paraglider are? I don't mean dictionaries (those are tertiary sources, and not always clear enough for our purposes), but rather sources from academic journals, major trade/industry magazines, etc., that give a good definition/explanation? In a certain sense, I'm a good test subject for measuring those definitions, since I know absolutely nothing about flying, paragliding, gliding, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How about step 1 reduce the exercise to paraglider. And then using that machine would given the gerund? Or evoluted uses of the term in context and see the machine infocus; such gets to the lived context that wordsmith sometimes use to make defintions that often simply miss what is going on. Will work on the exercise Qwyrxian has suggested. Joefaust (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is some start on the exercise: Effinger in his US Patent 3153877 runs a bit loose as he goes through his focus for many description paragraphs and then concludes: "Aircraft such as above described may be variously termed a "parawing," "flexwing" or "paraglider." He takes a bit of a broad brush to support his direct interests. Filing: Nov. 14, 1962. Already preceding him on those three terms was a considerable amount of work on those three terms. What is evident in Effinger's patent was a support for hung masses under parasol wing that could glide.

Woglom parakite in 1896. He carefully described that a kite has an anchor, a tether, and a wing. Major book. Parakites, A treatise on the making and flying of tailless kites for scientific purposes and for recreation. By Gilbert Totten Woglom. Published 1896 by G. P. Putnam's sons in New York [etc.] . Written in English.

Section 36, Parakites gliding " Up-hill." — It will be observed in any wind sufficient to float a train or single parakite, that the with- drawal of the cordage causes the parakites to glide upward on the wind and assume angles of elevation from the horizontal in excess of that attained by the same structures in fixed captivity, i. e., with the cordage belayed or held."

• Such indicates that there was recognition that a parakite upon further resistance brought through the tether causes the observed gliding upward. Later aerodynamicists and users easily knew these matters as driving the wing by use of a tether either by resisting with a fixed anchor or a moving anchor; the free gliding form is the anchor falling while sending the drive force of gravity through the tether to effect a pull on the wing. Hence, parakites for Woglum observations gave a gliding effect upon further resistance. That is precisely what aviation used for further application; parachutes dropped down with resistance sent through the shrouds to the various formats of resisting forms above; one will see inventors and engineers later in 1900s not changing these formats. The gliding parachute shows up as paraglider; and it was Woglom's publish book that set parakite in line for the paraglider understanding. Paraglider in large blossom occurred inthe 1950 and 1960s with worldaround publication of tethered-below masses to various wing forms above as unpowered gliding systems. Some uses of the term slipped to focus on just the wing part, but the literature shows full understanding that the full system required the driving payload and the usefulness of the tethering to keep center of gravity lower than the wing, as always occurs in parakites as the resistive anchor is part of the system and thus puts cennter of gravity low. A fixed soil anchor of a parakite might easily have tonnes of anchor force available to resist the wing in the wind. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The excitement of Musil in 1963 in his teachings in 3154269 indicated some near-to-him action around "paraglider" without effort to go earlier that Rogallo's Flexikite configuration; he did not make an effort to draw out the essence fully, but he did get close: "The consideration of a deployable lifting device for recovery of space vehicles has received considerable attention in the past few years. The most popular device which embodies this concept is known as the "paraglider" or Rogallo flexikite. It is currently undergoing considerable investigation sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration." So, we note that there was deep attention for several years before his March 18, 1963, filing of his patent. Musil in the patent on the ringwing was kissing close to already known formats of paraglider. His ringwing still had wing, tether to payload. Today we do not see in the popular sport of paragliding manned ringwing paragliders. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Spell edit:Joefaust (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But with Musil's lead we may look to 1948 at Rogallo's patent; Gertrude Sugden Rogallo and Francis Melvin Rogallo. He was an aeronautical engineer graduated from Stanford University; he patented a wing format for use as a kite, a glider, or powered aircraft. His invention required a tether set transferring the resistive effort of an anchor or dropping payload in order to have his wing form take its shape for deflections that resulted in glides. US Patent 2546078. He recites in his 1948 filing: "We further believe that our principle could be utilized in the construction of a toy glider or airplane, and we have met with some experimental success by attaching a weight in place of the control string and reflexing the trailing edge by means of a piece of string between the two ends of the the center line. In this connection it should be noted that whatever structure or framework for supporting weight, motors, etc. might be utilized in conjunction with our kit body and not secured to it in a manner which woudl tend to make the lifting surface rigid." Thus one can see that the tether set is part of the essence. The kite body is meant by Rogallo as the wing set (and in same patent he instructs on multiple wings in one whole system). And the weight for the glider effect is the resistive falling set. Consistency: resistive set, tether set, wing set. Such matches the 1896 Woglom's classic book teaching. And such will be found to persist through the renaissance of paragliding/hanggliding in 1960 by Tony Prentice and others through today. Eliminate the tether set and put the payload in the wing and get a non-paraglider, non-kite, but get a glider that is not a paraglider. The only difference between a parakite and a paraglider is that the anchor or resistive or driving complex is moving freely through the air or fluid. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ATW or anchor, tether, wing. History has been consistent with parachute, parakite, and paraglider. Fixed anchor kite: kite or parakite. No glide: parachute with falling payload. Gliding: paraglider. All had the tether set coupling the payload/anchor to wing. Neglect the tether set and get non-paraglider gliders. The same persists in 2011 sport paragliding. And the same ATW persists in non-sport paragliding circles. Does someone have something different?Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As with most things, there will be those who get confused. Effinger missed by solidly attaching motor to a wing and writing that he still had paraglider, as he took the excitement over Rogallo's and NASA's effort that used the boomed parawing; he exceptionally had a non-paraglider glider that used a parawing. The wing is not enough for the then traditional paraglider. His conflict of interest was to get his patent through with a firm hand-hold mount that a motor could also be placed; he did not bother to carry the tether deal; but he kept the hung-belong part of the matter. Effinger had a non-paraglider hang glider for his foundation because of the rigid non-tether coupling of the payload.Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In the 1800s it was well known in skill circles that one may replace the kite anchor with a free falling weight to get a kite that received airflow because of the falling weight at the bottom of the kite tether. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New sports participants simply buying a commercial focused product and using it does not attain the thrust to overcome a long centuries old flow of professional aeronautical knowledge base. Nevertheless, the OZONE paraglider is a paraglider: ATW: falling anchor, tether set, wing. No problem there. The problem is arising when someone's narrow view does not let in the fullness of history's flow of alternatives. With the full flow and the challenges of present problems inventors will most likely continue to bring innovations and changes to the paraglider scene; but WP is not a crystal ball, so we do not go there; but WP does want robust presentation of noteworthy aspects of a subject to be presented in mature articles. Such will include the one-tether paraglider and the distinct one-liner paraglider; yet I suspect IP 88 and also Jontyla will wince and struggle about the one-tether paraglider, yet such is the oldest and still is very present even in today's free-flight world full full colors. Young upstarts have been trying to not see what has been fully evident in free-flight hang gliders as they try to hijack "paraglider" to a narrow view of just what they are using from some commercial makers. The Falcon 3 hang glidr is a paraglider using the single-tether format with the tether short enough to let the pilot grab the wing when he or she wants to effect some extra control. The recent spike in commercial limp canopy paragliders has been trying to forget that airframed paragliders of single tether are paragliders by the thrust of much longer and deep history. Otto Lilenthal did not have a paraglider hang glider as he did not have the tether set. But NASA thrusted the options of framed parawings that brought in a high focus on some short-tehter options that Barry Hill Palmer explored in 1961, Mike Burns explored in 1962, John D. explored in 1963... all short-tethers using parawing to net a paraglider. The long string exploration by fellow to Rogallo ...David Barish went the gliding parachute path with long tethers and limp wing to get a paraglider where hanging pilot in the paraglider hang glider could no longer grab the wing for control but relied on string pull to control the flight. Barish was not the actual birther of paraglider, as Jalbert and Rogallo and others fully knew governable parachutes. The words do not do the trick; look to the engineers and designers who saw the essence of the machines; and they all came up with the same: falling mass tether to wing: if the wing was tally symmetrical for just drag drop: parachute; if gliding was effective, the machine was a gliding kite system: paraglider. This all suffices to cover all of sport paragliders in popular note in 2011. The narrow point of view is not to allow in the rich history and multiple alternative that have been extant noteworthily in history that continues to be written up to today. There are references for all these points from reliable sources; original research is not needed; only work to bring up the valuable works of others that are out there to bring in for readers of WP. Joefaust (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh....I feel sorry that you're doing so much work, and none of it is useful for our purposes. Everything you did about is original research. You're using primary documents like patents, as well as analyzing the actual construction of devices, to try to figure out some core definition. All of this would make a fascinating book, or magazine article, or even blog post. You cannot arrive on a definition this way. Again, what I asked is: can someone please find a reliable source (like, maybe, a key, famous book on paragliding, or an overview article in a reliable sporting magazine, or something of that sort) that defines paragliding/paragliders? I don't want seventeen different references about all these historical points that you yourself add up to determine a definition; I want one reference that provides a clear definition. Well, more than one reference is okay, but we need references that state "Paragliding is...." followed by a definition. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian. The British national body (BHPA) has as reasonable description of paragliding here: http://www.bhpa.co.uk/paraglide/index.php The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (http://www.fai.org/about) who manage and control all air sports worldwide classify paragliders here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/paragliding. We do have some standard texts that are used by pilots, they act as both introductory guides and manuals, Dennis Pagan's "The Art of Paragliding": http://www.amazon.com/Art-Paragliding-Dennis-Pagen/dp/0936310146 & http://www.pagenbooks.com/ or perhaps Ian Currer's Touching Cloudbase, A Complete Guide to Paragliding: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Touching-Cloudbase-Complete-Guide-Paragliding/dp/0952886219 Likewise, there are a few magazines dedicated to paragliding that are either available through subscription or are directly produced by the National Associations. Usually the CAA require the national bodies to have a mechanism of communicating changes (such as airspace changes) to their membership: International magazine: http://www.xcmag.com/about-cross-country/ US (USHPA): http://www.ushpa.aero/magazine.asp UK (BHPA): http://www.bhpa.co.uk/bhpa/skywings/index.php 88xxxx (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have just had an idea. There are more French paragliders than anyone else in the world, I believe there are well over 20,000 pilots and it's generally regarded to be because they have the Alps, one of the worlds best paragliding locations. Wikipedia is available in French, I believe, so if you want a quick overview on how they define paragliding why not go and have a look at the page put together by the French & other French speaking nations. In French paragliding is "parapente". Perhaps we'll see if they constantly refer to such accidents throughout the page or if they title their page "Parapente (Sport)" of just "Parapente". Likewise, do they have a link to a list of fatalities? Perhaps you will need to run it through Google Translate as maybe, like me, you don't speak French. It's just an idea, but it might give you a perspective on why it is only the English description of paragliding that is expected to have such lists and be renamed and defaced, etc by these two users. 88xxxx (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I just took my own advice and found the following under the title "Accidentologie": "Même si la pratique du parapente est classée dans les sports à risque, les avancées technologiques ont significativement réduit le nombre d'accidents depuis les années 1980. En moyenne, en France, il y a moins d'une dizaine d'accidents mortels par an pour environ 30 000 pratiquants soit un taux d'accident mortel d'environ 0,026% ou 0,26‰ par an9." which states that on average there are 12 deaths per year of the 30,000 pilots, giving an accident rate of 0.026%, or 0.26% per year". They includes a citation to the FFVL, their National Federation 88xxxx (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Something of the order of 10 is off in the phrase of "0.026%, or 0.26% per year" Joefaust (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, 88xxxx's quote was correct but he clearly made a translation typo. 0,026% and 0,26‰ are the same, in the english version he accidentally replaced ‰ with %. Incidentally, the figure 12 is also a translation error, "une dizaine" is 10 not 12, so the correct translation is "less then 10" rather than 12.Jontyla (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Easily inside sport one sees oneself as sport; the challenge is that paragliding has been happening outside of sport; and the mother article will be disambiguating the matter in order to serve readers with a NPOV about paragliding. Do you have reliable source for those figures; maybe Turkey or India now has more paragliders going than the French; now is pretty close to October 8, 2011. Please refrain from claims of "deface" for contributors in good faith editing; such continued attacks may merit a visit from a WP admin. You have been asked before about that. Joefaust (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the translation errors, I used an online translation website as I don't speak French. The point still stands, I feel. Why would the other language versions describing paragliding be much the same as the current English one if our language definition were so wildly wrong? I say it's because it isn't, and I suggest that my example, the largest paragliding nation, somewhat proves the point that this page correctly represents paragliding and that the proposed changes are bunk. 88xxxx (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

The section titled "In-flight Wing Deflation (Collapse)" needs to be broken up into several smaller paragraphs. It's too hard to read as one large paragraph. Thanks, Michelle Ress

Safoocat (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - please re-open after clarifying by suggesting the split points "...lastword. Firstword...". "Several" is commonly understood to mean "three or more" - did you really mean that? Seems like a lot for such a short section. --Lexein (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The debate is not yet concluded and the page may be unprotected when the LOCKED FOR DISCUSSION PROTECTION process concludes according to WP process steps

This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above: It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. 88xxxx (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Contrarily I do not recognize as you claim; I was saying that we have the best available in the article citation; those could be improved if someone finds better. WP could use, at least in the be-bold rule, the best set of sources; the set of citations can go to other recent years once this discussion is concluded. In no way need we wait for some crystal-ball future; we can go with best resource now. WP standards aims for reliable sources; that is ever relative to the type of data; that a person is announced dead has various levels of certification; that newspapers and clubs and churches note and celebrate the loss of John Doe rides hide as notification that a person died, but does not prove such. Joefaust (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

** I clarify: The sport section of paragliding (a section that does not yet exist in the freeze time right now Oct. 8, 2011) within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place than the good place we have available in the citations in Paragliding fatalities to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders than what was contributed by NoPara; I have been looking for best source and have not yet found a better one than that which we see in the collection of citations presenting in Paragliding fatalities and more of same that can be had for recent years; I am completely open to find a better resource, as always, on any article in WP. Account 88xxx is not seeing the meaning of my quote and trying to say what I recognize or not. WP guides that via bold editing one could use the best available to date, which is the case. This moved remark has been extended in face of the wrong interpretation of account 88xxx FFD; one can see first quote in record above. 88xxx attacks off topic on my person in PGforum are not fit for family time view. Perfect futuristic best conceivable level for citations is not what WP calls for; indeed citations are not always needed if the source is available in the world and the matter is verifiable; 67 deaths to date by paragliding is verifiable and could be given good citations for in 2011. When editors have clickable sources for such, then that could give more robust knowledge to the reader. One click for one person should not be seen as indiscriminate and not excessive. Joefaust (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP has now categories Death by paragliding and also Death by hang gliding Joefaust (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should wait for a WP admin and get an expert, independent opinion on whether your sources are considered acceptable to WP standards. In this talk-page there are links to sites that hold more reliable accident data than your "best yet" or "best available" sources, they simply don't validate your comments or your opinion. By your own admission you are openly asking for "better" sources as you do not have any that support the changes you wish to make to this page. I say you are admitting failure on your part when you ask for "better" sources, otherwise, why would you ask? I would like the WP admin to consider what you have written as an admission that you cannot justify your changes and that he ask you to refrain from trying to re-apply them. 88xxxx (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please review the edits dated 00:22 to 00:42, 9 October 2011 on this talk-page as the user "joefaust" has edited my comment above. He has changed what I have written and changed the title of this section after I created it. The page history will show that the last few edits to this page have changed my comment !!! The revision dated 23:51, 8 October 2011 shows my original text. I find this behaviour absolutely reprehensible. Surely this type of behaviour is not tolerated on a talk-page at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone needs to ask user "joefaust" to simply add his comments to this page, not edit other users comments should they disagree with his own opinion. Such behaviour is hardly becoming of a user with a valid point of view. I originally wrote QUOTE

This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above:

19:32, 8 October 2011: "The sport section of paragliding within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders; I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better; I am completely open to find a better".

It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. END QUOTE

I will start a new section as I originally intended. Perhaps user "joefaust" will have the good manners and education to simply write what he thinks rather than try to edit and delete what I think.88xxxx (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The debate is concluded and the page may be unprotected

This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above:

19:32, 8 October 2011: "The sport section of paragliding within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders; I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better; I am completely open to find a better".

It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. 88xxxx (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"joefaust" please do not edit my comments above. I am writing them in good faith such that an independent WP admin may review the facts as I see them and come to his own conclusions. He will be free to ignore my opinion as you are. I am not asking you to agree with me, but please respect my opinion. 88xxxx (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems and differences of opinion lies in the validity of the citations and references being used for the suggested changes and this is a significant sticking point here. "nopara" is right when he says paragliding is dangerous, paraglider pilots acknowledge this and the wikipedia entry for paragliding should reflect this. I know, I am a paraglider pilot and the cost of my life insurance reflects this. I for one, along with most of the paragliding community, do not recognise the "cometclones" website and its list of links to news articles as a valid citation for data or for providing annual accident/incident statistics. Now being pragmatic, I'm sure we would all agree 100% accurate data is impossible to gather because some accidents go unreported and eye witnesses cannot always be reliable. The National Associations worldwide do collect and publish accident data, usually collected direct from the pilots, unlike the "cometclones" website which seems to collect news reports from the mainstream media who are not well versed with respect to paragliding. To try to find and example for non-pilots to grasp; who would you rather believe when looking for aviation statistics, the Civil Aviation Authorities or a website with links to news stories? I know where I stand on this issue, and I know I'm in the majority here. It's why the consensus of opinion on this page is forming to show that there are only two users here with this minority opinion, I, and another user commenting here, have managed to have posts removed from the largest international paragliding forum as they refer to this debate. We felt it would be detrimental to this debate if hundreds of pilots came to this talk page and backed our stance that the "cometclones" website should not be referred to as containing data, even though it would confirm a consensus of opinion. The WP definition of "citation" refers to "reliable sources", and to help non-pilots understand my viewpoint, I would ask them to consider the foloowing example; who would one believe when looking for aviation statistics, the Civil Aviation Authorities or a website with links to news stories? 88xxxx (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The debate is NOT concluded and the page may be unLOCKED when the LOCK process concludes

COMMENT: Learning. Thanks for the editing mentoring note 88xxx. FEEDBACK for your fair back-n-forth: You are not well knowing my position and guess wrongly. I did not apparently say clearly enough for you, 88xxxx, to understand my position. I state again with some enhancement: The set of citations for the fatalities as a collection per year for years shown now in Paragliding fatalities is the BEST yet and can be used; when those are improved, as any article in WP can be improved, then contributors can edit up to the improvement. Waiting for that future better is not cause to hold back what is best-yet; the citations in gross bring forward a bridge to real people who have died from their paragliding. That future better situation should NOT rule not to have good action now; keep and improve the best we have. No org is providing better worldwide set of bridges to the death facts than those provided by NoPara in the article on fatalities; he has ready more work up to 2011, pending the go ahead from WP admin. If WP wants a win for the readers, for Paragliding, and for society by a cornerstone encyclopedic article that cites to best-known source for each step of the article, then she may have it. The minute you or anyone has something better than what contributor NoPara has for the matter of paragliding fatalities, then add it to WP following guidelines. In today's world for an encyclopedia of WP status to hold back those firm bridges to blessing potentials in the deaths of participants seems unconscionable to me. And my guess is that you as a PG pilot would want those bridges to be available now rather than later. Joefaust (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being deceitful and I do not believe you. From this point in I suggest all readers be aware that this user is likely to edit their posts to achieve his own goals. He is clearly capable of the most reprehensible behaviour, witness his changing of my comments above. He is simply presenting a different picture by the hour. I call on any WP admin to stop this farce now. This user defaced the paragliding page to the point that rolling back his changes caused it to be protected. Since then he has failed to qualify his proposed changes with valid references and citations and has now spent the past hour or so openly editing what I have written, presumably because he doesn't agree with it. This cannot go on any longer. I would ask any monitoring WP admin to stop this user from wasting any more of our time here. Both on the talk-page and elsewhere. This is making a mockery of debate and from this point on I find it hard to understand how any other user or admin will be able to take a balanced point of view. How are we to know if comments on this page that state a particular view have not been edited by this user who may have a contrary viewpoint. This entire episode beggars belief. 88xxxx (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

One further and final point, I think user "joefaust" is trying to confuse the issue even further by suggesting this page is being reviewed for deletion. I have just had to look it up, but he seems to be suggesting this page is undergoing an "Articles for Deletion" process (AfD). Is it? I am becoming lost for words here. I came to this talk-page to try and lay the case for why we should not pollute the paragiding page with his edits and I am afraid I am having trouble understanding where we go next. I am having serious difficulties trying to understand this user, his comments and his viewpoint. This is not a personal attack in any way, I am just getting lost trying to move forward here. 88xxxx (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: Sorry, getting overworked; not AfD, but simply frozen for discussion. I will alter the AfD note. Thanks. We have AfD for the related article, not this one.. Move forward to prepare this present article for when the lock is taken off; that is clear. Just how the fatalities will be handle is a challenge. 88xxx there is nothing wrong with mistakes; the 30 or so hours this week on this matter is all for anyone to examine. I simply confused LOCK with AfD, thank you for the point, but my conduct does not rise to the deceit level where you begin the personal attacking; I have a habit that substantial text of a person should be referenced, not lifted without clarifying; however the skill of doing such with this new tool might have had a stumble; I wrote about the effort in full view, hiding nothing; you go from that to biting a participant which is against WP guides to do. You might try looking at the edits, not the name of the editor who edits; WP guides you to avoid insinuations against a person and stay on the article's needs. If you are having a tough time on what to do from here, you might open a section hereon or in sandbox and develop the section. Or describe how to improve this article. You are not asked to believe anyone in the work on the article; if you contribute content, then have that content meet WP guides. You need not give any notice to WHO is editing, but WHAT is contributed and if such advances the aims of WP. In my own wrestling with AfD on the Paragliding fatalities article and the LOCK on this article, a momentary confusion occurred while I got momentarily disturbed by how you grossly missed the referent in my text and failed to follow the referent where the referent was to keep the strong best that we have and ever look to future better. On that point, the strong medical book that had a handful of paragliding deaths does not at all measure up for world purposes against the much superior collection of sourced deaths of NoPara offer (which offer is not all up yet, pending these discussions) to tune, though incomplete of over 800 fatalities. ON THE matter of this article, you could go from here and discuss the offer to see that sport Paragliding is but one over ten sectors of paragliding; lots of work to do there if you are at a loss of something to do. Joefaust (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

*** With the tease of 88xxx, I will summarize my view: 1. "Paragliding" needs to be for all noteworthy sectors of paragliding of which sport is just one. At appropriate time, according to WP spin-off, have dedicated articles for each noteworthy sector; links to those sector articles would be in this main Paragliding article. Right now there is open Paragliding (sport), Paragliding fatalities, and Paragliding (commerce). 2. Link from this article in its sport section to appropriate other articles, one of which would be the AfD article on fatalities. 3. Paragliding is activity using paragliders. Much open space for contributors as there is very much noteworthy material with good citation that is not in the main article here or its natural spinoffs. Joefaust (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"with this new tool" you say! I have been a member on Wikipedia for less than a week, and your "talk" page has comments dating back to 2007. Maybe I'm just naturally gifted when using logic and a keyboard! Yet again, I say you are being manipulative and when your dubious tactics fail to achieve your goals your approach is to apologise, call it a mistake and carry on. 88xxxx (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fork of Paragliding (sport)

I strongly oppose the moving of this page to another name and reuse of this page as a disambiguation or umbrella page for the following reasons:

• Joe's suggestion that sport paragliding is but one aspect of paragliding is wrong. Paragliding as currently described in this article is what is generally meant by paragliding. I googled the term paragliding looking for responses that are not about sport paragliding (or sport motorised paragliding) and gave up after examining the first 150 entries, having found none.
• Joe's reason for doing this appears to be to try to get his views into the mainstream. WP is not a place to change views, it should reflect mainstream and widely held minority views.
• The google search above returned this page as the number one hit for the term. Joe's suggestions would result in hijacking this highly desirable spot to present his views. Clearly this article's core subject should remain with this name since that is what the google rating is based on.

If Joe can present a rationale here for creating a page Paragliding (non sport) and does so without using it to contradict what's on this page or discuss sports paragliding dangers then this page could contain a reference to it. Jontyla (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Everybody stop it now.

Next person who insults someone else gets a block for WP:NPA. Next time someone changes someone else's comment without permission gets a block for violating WP:TPO and disruptive editing. Saying that someone else's work is wrong is not a violation if Wikipedia rules. Using the name of a living person is not a violation of those rules (so long as you aren't being insulting). If you all are incapable of having a civil conversation and trying to get a consensus on how to edit the article, then you cannot edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you very much, Qwyrxian. I have spent much of this past weekend re-instating my comments. The page history will show that only user "nopara" has been removing other users comments. He has also been removing all comments that refer to Mr Rick Masters, except his own and those of user "joefaust". I have been trying to debate the points raised and instead have spent much of the time trying to reinstate much of the debate. One user even when through and removed the name Rick Masters to try and appease this user. Is the debate back in reasonable shape now where the building of a consensus may continue? 88xxxx (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to correct myself here, it wasn't only user "nopara". On Saturday evening (CET) user "joefaust" renamed a new section I added and significantly edited the content of my comment. 88xxxx (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How much further do we need take this? Do we have sufficient consensus yet to demonstrate that the page was representative of paragliding before the edits that attempted to get these two users minority view strewn throughout the article? 88xxxx (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll address that in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should be clear, in case somehow any of you didn't know the rules: you may not edit any other person's comments on a talk page, unless those comments are clearly disruptive, like if they are spam, vandalism, or a violation of WP:BLP. I didn't look at every single edit, but I didn't see any edits that violate those rules. I will say that some of 88xxxx's comments were rude, and that needs to stop also, but none so egregious that they needed to be removed.

If anyone thinks that anything still here does violate one of those rules, tell me here, but do not make the change yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert to prior version

Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we can't actually "vote" on which version to keep, but sometimes we do take straw polls to see if a consensus exists. Thus, I would like to ask people to indicate here whether they prefer the current version of the article, or, if they believe it should be reverted, what version should be reverted to (to do that, go the article's history, find the version you think is appropriate, and copy the URL here]). I have no opinion in the matter; I just want to see if we have any sort of consensus. If we don't we'll have to continue talking, possibly using dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&oldid=45464336 - I would say that the frozen version currently being shown is fine as the controversial changes had just been "undone" prior to being frozen. 88xxxx (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&oldid=454643365 - I agree that the frozen version is OK. I would, however, vote for modifying the last line of the safety section as I indicated in talk:Paragliding#Proposed_Change (which I have just edited a little). I find the criticism that the current section is a bit too sugar coated has some merit and this would redress the balance for me and provide some hard, sourced, numbers. Jontyla (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• The choice made at the unfreeze followed by the current work since that point is fine. Let's make a great article; when spin-off is needed according to WP guides, then great. A prior WP tag on the article is to get the teaching, training and how-to text in to either or both Wikiuniversity or Wikibooks, as much of what is up is of such nature. Joefaust (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Meant at the time of "unlock".Joefaust (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you refer to when you say "current work since that point"? Could you perhaps be more explicit? If you are referring to the stuff that you have been adding to Paragliding fatalities then I vote no. Jontyla (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe & RM: I have just tidied it up a bit and made it more readable as it was pretty disjointed. However, I understood the changes you wished to add, and that you wish to refer to other things. No problem. I have left all the changes you made referring to PG as a development from HG, your links and everything. I have separated the text about other forms, commerce, etc as they link away from the page, in fact it makes it stand out better I think, as I accept that what we do is only 99.9% of what people might be looking for. I have (and you might not agree here) removed the definition of a PG as a kite. It is a gliding aircraft. If you can live with this I'd be grateful, then we don't need to argue more on the subject. I will stand up for this definition and fight against changes, I hope not to have to. I have added to your definition of kiting, by saying it is what we do before and after flight to improve our wing-handling skills. I have left the link to Jalbert, it seems right to me. IF WE CARRY ON LIKE THIS WE CAN LIVE TOGETHER. If you start again trying to redefine what our sport is we'll be right back where we were a week ago. Respect what we do & we will respect your need to refer to the minority uses of aerofoils. 88xxxx (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at what's been done to the Safety section? I have a hard time believing that you agree the PDMC nonsense should stay. BTW, the Kite article you mention is almost entirely written by Joe so not really an independent source of opinion. Everywhere else that I looked refers to kites as having a string - only Joe seems to feel HG and PG are kites. Jontyla (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

One step at a time. If we wish this page to remain as a definition of what you, I & most people see as paragliding then I intend to make distinct edits of anything Joe or RM would like to change. If we go through this process slowly and concisely we will be able to get agreement on most parts I hope and will be able to find where the problems lie. Obviously the PDMC will go, it is simply a graphic representation of an aviation fact and not specific to paragliding. Take any aircraft out of its flying configuration and you can probably define the altitude at which contact with the ground is inevitable and we don't see such content in the definition of other aircraft. He is entitled to publish his opinion as to what is important, but we will remove it from this encyclopedia if it is too far from reality, and then move to arbitration/dispute resolution. To this point we have 3 or 4 pilots arguing our case, but if it went to dispute resolution we would win by shear weight of numbers. I would hope to avoid this. As we have agreed, this page is about our sport with links to the activities that are not, then these guys should allow us to define what we do with us allowing them to add to it. All within reason, of course. So... one step at a time... from the top down. I'll be skipping some of the top sections as they are not controversial at all, simply an introduction to what we do. 88xxxx (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies Jontyla, you were right. I tried a step by step approach of integrating their changes in to a reasonable format and "joefaust" just changed them all back. I shall be giving up on a reasonable approach here before long. Can't see the point in delaying the inevitable. If we can't negotiate with them or meet them somewhere in the middle, we just take the easy option. Watch this space for admin reaction, and my talk page and that of joe & the admin 88xxxx (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Move the "how-to" and training matter into Wikiuniversity and link to such moved material.

As a WP admin editor tagged the article, there is a need to get off the article the how-to and training material. Wikiuniversity and Wikbooks was suggested by the admin editor. Either or both targets would serve the sport and other activities that use the similar skills and training actions. Joefaust (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Identifying the text that is more appropriate for the Wikiunersity would be one of the tasks. Creating the Wikiuniverstiy course or whatever would be an action to get started. Or start a Wikibook. Joefaust (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I reread the article specifically from the point of view of seeing if I felt it was too close to training material, and I didn't really feel it was. It is quite extensive, but I'm not really convinced that it would benefit from either pruning or splitting into many sub articles. I don't think it should grow much longer though. I think an outsiders view would be useful on this point. Qwyrxian, do you have a view on WP:NOTMANUAL? Jontyla (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback changes since unlock and relock

I feel this page should be rolled back to the previous lock state and then relocked. Given the conflictual nature of these changes there is no excuse for ploughing right in and making changes for which no consensus has been even sought, let alone achieved. This is not how this should be handled. Rather than just roll back the changes myself I have asked user:Qwyrxian to have a look and give his opinion. Jontyla (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing the issue with Joefaust. Will take appropriate action once I figure out exactly what that is; I may ask for the advice of other admins. In the mean time, I strongly recommend that no one edit the article for anything more complicated than adding a wikilink or correcting a spelling mistake. Don't add or remove or change any content. Don't add or remove references. If someone else makes a change, just leave it--it can always be "corrected" later if needed. In other words, treat the article like it's protected, with the exception of really surface level fixes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Will wait. While waiting, at your lead, some wikifying can be done, as you suggest. I will do some wikigying; others are invited to do the same. And in TALK here I will open some topics for reaching consensus, not bully voting, as WP is not a democracy. Joefaust (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How will the article face extant noteworthy controversies that affect the sport of paragliding? Joefaust (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How will the article face extant noteworthy controversies that affect the sport of paragliding? Joefaust (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Proposal: Have a section named something like "Controversies in paragliding sport and recreation" Joefaust (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What are the controversal aspects? Do they fit in existing sections? Can they be given neutral section titles instead of lumping together under controversy? A section title should be informative when read in the table of contents and "controversies" means very little by itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There will be no controversial aspects when we have debated them all and consensus has told us what the correct definition of paragliding is. Joefaust, you still don't really get it do you, These conversations are defining the page through consensus and where necessary through direction from an admin telling us what to do and what not to do. "extant noteworthy controversies"? You must let me join you on a trip to the supermarket someday, it would make a great day out! 88xxxx (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Work for consensus on "Paragliders are unique among aircraft in being easily portable"

Work is requested for the verifiable status of "Paragliders are unique among aircraft in being easily portable" Joefaust (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Starting: I will bring forward counterexamples that show the statement is false. Why is some editor getting into deep comparisons and coming up with an untenable statement that destroys in part the integrity of the article that is being built? Unique is untenable. "Among aircraft" is huge realm. The simple conical parachute is an aircraft and the rescue chute carried by many paragliding pilots in a handy pocket (sometimes carries two chutes in case of need like candlesticking). So, even within paragling the contested statement flies into gross error. Will go further, if needed. Portable is not defined. What to do with the aircraft wingsuit? Much more. Hey, I have a pocket kite that is more portable than any paraglider used by a pilot for manned sport paragliding. Let us not let reader laugh at the editors of the article by making such an untenable claim. We need to work on describing the portability of paragliders used in our sport; that can be done well eventually without making untenable and complex comparison as a hype tactic sounding like a sales brochure text. The monkey-standing use flying of the Porta-Wing was more portable than the paraglider form of the Porta-Wing; and I know for fact that the pack was more portable than an a paraglider system where the payload includes a paraglider harness (which makes it part of the paraglider). And quicker to pack and easier to pack that the bag-harness-tethers-wing paragliders. So, the statement is false and work is requested. Let's see if we can come to a consensus about the sentences. Maybe delete it and build a good description of the portability without making comparisons that cannot hold up to scrutiny. Volume. Tote volume. Tote balance. Pack samples. Photographs. Drawings. Joefaust (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because it is unique among aircraft in that it is the most portable one you can fly. I can see little point in debating with someone who wishes to consider a parachute alongside gliding aircraft. So do we just roll up every day and type "No it's not" into a browser every time some moron (not you Joe, you're great) wishes to compare our sport to a mushroom for example? 88xxxx (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems a rather mute point now that the phrase has been edited out!! Anyone get the IP? 88xxxx (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep (both of you) the indirect negative comments out of Wikipedia; you've got a whole, lovely forum of your own to do that on. Meanwhile, Joefaust, per our own articles, 88xxxx has a point, in that parachute do not seem to be classified as aircraft per the definition at aircraft, nor does parachute ever indicate that it is an aircraft. While I don't know about all of those other things you mentioned, they seem to have a different definition, except, oddly enough (for me), for kites, which are listed in Aircraft#Unpowered aircraft.

Well actually he can hardly reply on that forum as his prior behaviour has caused his posting rights to be reduced to just about zero. Incidentally, a cynical person might consider it more than a coincidence that at exactly this point in time he turned his attention to re-writing the paragliding wiki page. Go figure! 88xxxx (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Parachutes, huh! It'll be mushrooms next, just watch! 88xxxx (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe runs some kite related websites, which is cool. A quick check of the history pages of some Kite pages will show he is involved with editing those wiki pages too. That's their problem though. 88xxxx (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

However, in any event, since the exact definition seems to be in challenge, there's a really easy solution: 88xxxx, if you could just produce a reference that states specifically that a unique feature of paragliders is their portability, or that they are more portable than any other aircraft, or any such definition, then there would be no question about the statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't be bothered. remove the word unique, it's fine by me. Oh, it's already been done I see. I intend to object to the word mushroom if it is used out of context though. 88xxxx (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-written it, making it non unique in aviation terms and expanded slightly the benefits of an aircraft in a rucksack. Hope this is acceptable. 88xxxx (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Work for consensus on the paths of evolution of paragliding.

There are at least four movements in history that brought forward the sport of paragliding. Readers will be shorted if an oversimplification results in profound holes. The article is not to be a hype brochure set to move sales or some narrow POV. Not at the moment to be limited by the remark, but just to get started working with other editors on the matter, I bring on the table:

1. Woglom coined "parakite" in his "Kite like aeroplane" patent. He also wrote and had published a classic book that received wide reading by aviation founders of the time. Parakites. A treatise on the making and flying of tailless kites for scientific purposes and for recreation. By Gilbert Totten Woglom. Published 1896 by G. P. Putnam's sons in New York [etc.]. Written in English. Full reading is easily available online. http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6980132M/Parakites Woglom taught that his device was not limited to just the specifics he taught. He was contemporary with a society that had already for a century been aware that gliders were successfully obtained by letting a kite's anchor freely fall through the air, even placing the mooring as weights hung from the wing part. Leonardo da Vinci who is so honored by 2011 paragliding sport participants in their "Leonardo" tracking program had parachute and also saw gliding. The parachute had long history and the gliding of such devices was tried with some success before Woglom; see Cayley medallion of late 1700s and then follow from there. This realm brought advances in parachute, parakite, aeroplane. Contemporary with Woglom is a strong William Beeson to be included in any seeing of the roots of governable gliding wings arriving from letting the wing be falling free with the tug of gravity on the masses involved in devices. The two brothers Lilienthal worked with kites to get their gliders; they knew of parachutes; Otto Lilienthal settle to put the mass of himself coupled well but still as pendulum mostly from the kite's wing; hang glider. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Francis M. Rogallo's work in the 1940s, his patents, his products ..through 1950s , his demonstrations in late 1950s of a man-doll hanging from suspension lines in gliding parachute using his Rogallo wing canopy for a host of leaders and engineers to see formed a furthering flow of evolution for paragliding. The NASA body of engineers that affected the world at that time easily had the Leonardo and Woglom and Rogallo flows of parachute, parakite, aeroplane, glider, gliding parachute at the late 1950s as Sputnik impetus sparked world around notice of paraglider and the gliding of paraglider. In that mix looking over Rogallo shoulders in some same rooms was David Barish. Paraglider was focus of several NASA related programs. The programs have direct evolutionary flows into paragliding activity. A European note is Tony Prentice who in 1960 had paraglider with ropes to his stiffened NASA parawing. A USA note is Barry Hill Palmer who took the wing of the paraglider and just grabbed it in seven versions of his paraglider hang glider; he noted that he was fully aware of hanging his mass as NASA hung by tether masses, but Barry rushed to just foot launch by grabbing the paraglider's wing and dispensing with the tethers; so he did the Otto Lilienthal thing. An Australian note is Mike Burns who kept the hanging principle as he hung the kite-glider's pilots and passengers from a single point from the NASA-like paraglider's wing form. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Jalbert branch: Kiteman, kytoon man, Barrage-balloon man, governable parachute man, helped to protect coasts of enemy aircraft with his kytoons, Domina Jalbert invented the ram-air airfoil wing affecting parachute gliding devices. He early had gliding-kiting wings on large kytoons as seen in his patents. His flow to paragliding is significant and highly noteworthy. Evolutes of his parafoil wing supply to the current most-used choice for paraglider in today's paragliding; his wing in paragliding has more users than the Rogallo parawing in sport paragliding of today. But Jalbert does not own paragliding. Rogallo does not own paragliding. Barish (see below) does not own paragliding. Woglom does not own paragliding. Beeson does not own paragliding. Etc. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

4.. David Barish worked on parachute and similar drag devices. He came up with the non-Jalbert and the non-Rogallo single-surface partially second surface wing that he patented. His termed his invention a "Glide wing" for the patent. Barish knew Rogallo personally. Barish knew the single-surface with partial second surface "arcuate leading edge" could be used with fixed or moving resist on the tethers to the glide wing. Mid 1960s. Before him were sport paragliders in use. Yet his hill-off gliding of his new type of parachute wing brought high focus on gliding of parachutes, a topic that was firmly already in the Jalbert flow, in Rogallo flow, in military gliding parawing flow. Barish added to extant gliding parachute flows; he added his patented wing and bold hill-off gliding. He had higher public presence than did Barry Hill Palmer. But in Australia Mike Burns had in 1962-3 firm presence in the public water recreation world there. The interest in the Barish wing waned in recreation as the NASA paraglider with Rogallo parawing and the Jalbert parafoil filled the answer of recreational hang gliding play together with Chanute-like and monoplane and Dunne hang gliders. The paraglider and the Rogallo wing parawing glider remained being used much more than the Barish single-surface partial second surface glide wing as the 1970s explosion of free-flight recreation and sport occurred. All then were forms of hang gliding and gliding parachutes; gliding the paraglider became paragliding, a branch of hang gliding. The branch paragliding grew, but the full body trunk continued to grow; a tree of branches. The tree: gliding oneself to be brother and sister with birds. Barish wing is seeing a tiny comeback in the prototypes of 2011's XXLite by OZONE, and the Barretina Hyper Lite by Pere Casellas. Mostly Barish's bold hill-offing physical exploration coupled with his professional status in parachute and drag device industry gave him a remembrance and flow to today's paragliding. But he is one of several flows. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

5. The whole of toy and sport kiting and modelers flow is noteworthy source of impact on paragliding. Following the paraglider toys that influenced the world and influenced full-on human-body involvement has noteworthy record. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How will the editors of the article paragliding represent the roots of paragliding without doing injury to paragliding or to the other branches of hang gliding free-flight? The version up today of "natural progression" is a narrow POV that might enclose hype in connotation and rebuff of actual noteworthy roots. Care is proposed to stumble. As paragliding is a branch or sector of hang gliding, such branch only has its merits and demerits whereas comparisons will be difficult and contentious. For encyclopedic purpose, comparison and hidden POV hype is not necessary. It is proposed that it will be enough to give good source for the steps taken in the historical flows to bring on historical paragliding in each of the eras of paragliding including, of course the contemporary era which continues to have changes. WP is not a crystalball and so speculation does not have much play in WP, I surmise; so it is not for the article to get into speculative futurism and prediction. Jalbert came from kites and parachutes. Rogallo came from kites and paragliders. Barish came from wings, parachutes, drag devices. Sportsmen Prentice in Europe spawned his paraglider from the NASA flow, as did Australian Mike Burns, and USA Barry Hill Palmer. Parakite Woglom came from kites with awareness of aeroplane. Paragliding for sport came from the gliding kites-gliding parachutes of Jalbert, Rogallo, Barish, and all carried the awareness of the hang gliding of the paramount achievement in gliding of Otto Lilienthal. Hang gliding's branch or sector paragliding continues to have changes in its sport's expression, even up to the very present moment as top-end experimenters are exploring stiffening of various sorts in the paraglider's wings, in the tether structure, in escape-rescue matters, in launching matters, in flight-termination matters; the sport has a character of growth in many of its aspects. That is, the article would do well to place paragliding in the aviation world with clear statements. Paragliding in sport is NOT a "natural progression" of hang gliding, but is directly a form of hang gliding among several forms of hang gliding; same statement has noteworthy validity for parachuting and kiting: paragliding is a branch of parachuting, a branch that has high focus on the gliding of the parachute, even the soaring fo the parachute ...with designer choices that bring on the gliding part to the front, this fully illustrated in the big flows of Rogallo, Jalbert, and Barish. Same for kiting: paragliding uses the machine kite with focus on the gliding of the machine kite; the aviation literature is full of the recognition of the play of kite; the 2011 sport paraglider person is the mooring of the kite while he or she moves about on the ground...yes moving, moving around back and forth, hopping, leaping, running, minor free-kiting and then continues that movement of mooring to use up potential energy to effect continued kiting with net glide through the air. This kiting was in the awareness of Cayley, Lilienthal, Beeson, Woglom, Wight Brothers, Jalbert, Rogallo, Barish, Prentice, Palmer, Burns, Miller in his book Without Visible Means of Support, etc. One must not let a narrow point of view of a 2011 own the rich root and history of paragliding by neglect of the roots and noteworthy facts. The patents support that the paraglider of sport paragliding is a gliding parachute, a kite system with falling anchor, a glider, an aircraft type, etc. No secrets and rich noteworthy history. How will the editors of article Paragliding bring in the full colors of the roots of the sport? Shorting the matter to something that is untenable will short the readers. It is worth working for a consensus that brings out the worthy foundations of sport paragliding. And give solid references for each significant step, so readers may follow their interests. Hide nothing that is noteworthy and verifiable of significance. The tree of personal free-flight holds a branch paragliding; that tree feeds the branch; keep the branch with its nutrient source. There is no need for commercial narrow point of view that cuts the branch off the tree. Let's work for consensus on the roots of sport paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel there is already too much detail about paraglider equipment origins and maybe not enough about the evolution of the sport. If Joe wishes to create a sub article on this specific subject and have a reference to it from the main article then I would support that, providing he undertook to add NOT ONE WORD about SAFETY to that article. Jontyla (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The definition of something does not need to record its entire history in my opinion, I would recommend creating a page called "History Of Paragliding" and link to it from here. If you think there is an interest in the subject go ahead and create a page dedicated to it. I don't see too many people being interested in it, but that's just my viewpoint. I have an interest in flying them. If it's important to you, do it. If you put safety information in I imagine some people will care, but not me. You can include pictures of B-52's or naked women for all I care, because I believe 99% of pilots would cast a glance at the opening paragraph and click the back button. History buffs would, no doubt, soak it up, but I am only interested in getting the right information to the pilots, the history buffs I leave to their peers. I have to admit your comment here was so long I did not fully read it. QED. 88xxxx (talk)

Working on Wiki links for the article with consensus.

What words will be given wiki links and which will not? What are the WP guides for editor-contributors? I am not an expert in this area of WP. I will do more study about the matter. While I am doing that study, I will place myself in the place of potential readers of the article. Guide I am just starting to study: WP:LINK Joefaust (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Readers who are not sport paragliders will arrive to the article from many backgrounds. What is "common" to an expert paragliding person may not be "common" to the readers who arrive at the article. How will the article serve the readers via the system of text wiki links? In the future mature article, there will be wiki links; which ones? At any moment any reader may enter the article and wikify a word that helps him or here have the article in the wikified format that is pleasant and important to that reader; any reader may do this; they are not required to enter Discussion and enter the consensus struggle. Those readers can be undone by the next reader or a regular non-owning editor with account in WP; or an editor might undo the wiki that a reader places. Joefaust (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• harness ____ I personally have a long connection with paragliding. And for me it was important and natural to wikify harness. In aviation and its paragliding sector "harness" has been a noteworthy long-standing part of the system. The patent history of harnesses for aviators is rich and alive with new changes. Inventors, designers, users, sellers are concerned with this part of the paraglider; the harness is part of the payload mass that interacts with gravity to help provide the effective gliding of the kite system. The harness varies from a simple set of belts to the tethers to a very complex item with cushions, pockets, comfort devices, webs, streamlining forms, etc. There will be readers who meet the word "harness" for the first time; there will be readers who get interested in the harness aspect of paragliders in sport paragliding and may fetch new ideas by following the rich world of WP via the harness sub-world, as harnesses in various disciplines and applications lend ideas to creative searching young and old minds. WP article Paragliding would do well to readers to have the word wikified. My wiki linking the word was done in good faith for good reason at the lead of our accompanying WP admin. So, please do not take the wiki link off harness without consensus. Of course any other reader can unwikify any wiki link. And this is not a matter of ownership, just a consensus understanding. WP likes wiki links, but not abuse of the tool. I hold that harness is an important plus with merit for the article. Listening for counters or affirmations .... Joefaust (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Indeed, it appears that WP would do well to have a dedicated article on hang gliding harnesses which would naturally include harnesses for all the branches of hang gliding, including the branch of sport paragliding; such an article would hold noteworthy history, patents, problems, solutions, specialty uses, etc. The article would have fair-weather sand-dune harnesses, minimum harness, spaghetti harness, XC harnesses, competition harness, harnesses for setting records, harnesses to serve entertainment applications, harness for non-living payloads, etc. Then the disambiguation page on harness would be able to go to the proposed article. Anyone interested in started an article on Harnesses for hang gliding? or some other title? The hundreds of noteworthy harnesses that have occurred in hang gliding and its sector paragliding seems an important aspect of safety, enjoyment, success in personal flight. Harness industry for free-flight activity sectors is a big deal; there is continued commercial competition. Designers are not asleep. Users and consumers keep up a care about harness types and changes. The section of present article might mature in a way to urge WP spin-off. Joefaust (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you just wikify the links that already have pages? The admin should advise us on this one. Be aware though, you're entering commercial territory here, and if you think my sharp whit, knowledge of the sport and grasp of written communication has the ability to swing a few kilo's wait until you try defining a PG harness, not as a comfortable seat with safety features thatt we sit in when flying, but as a canary cage that must be painted blue. The manufacturers will likely have you for breakfast. 88xxxx (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A reference supporting mainstream view of definition and safety

I had a search for well respected sources on Paragliding and came up with the following. The amazon link isn't suitable for WP referencing, I assume, but will allow checking that I haven't made any copying errors.

Paragliding: the Complete Guide, The Lyons Press (www.lyonspress.com), limited preview at www.amazon.com/reader/1840370165

Strictly speaking a paraglider is an aircraft which has no primary rigid structure, is capable of soaring flight and can be foot launched from a hillside. (Page 7)

As I said in the introduction, there is some danger in paragliding. The choice of how much danger is really up to you. With a sensible approach the risk is really very small indeed, but if you tackle the sport at all recklessly you will certainly pay for it - possibly with your neck. (Page 137)

Noel Whittall is the secretary of the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Commission of the FAI - the governing body responsible for both sports throughout the world. (Back cover)

Noel is a well respected figure in the free flight world and also the father of Robbie Whittall, past World Hang Gliding Champion and the first ever World Paragliding Champion. (Common knowledge) Jontyla (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, The lack of the word rigid above was a copying mistake on my part. Amazon doesn't allow cut and paste from its preview page. I've edited it into its rightful place. Apologies to joefaust and 88xxxx for sending them off on an unnecessary discussion. (afterthought, I've a feeling that amazon deliberately misses out words on a random basis from its preview pages, so it's possible that it wasn't entirely my fault). Jontyla (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a start on this important matter in this section: The author did not define "primary structure" for the claim, did not give his definition for the paragraph. In engineering, a paraglider does have a primary structure; one might not know well the structure, but paragliders have always had primary structures. Maybe he wanted to say that the wing of the paraglider did not have sturdy beams or something; but even at that, such would not be true of paragliders in general, as many paragliders broadcasted around the world from engineering projects and hang gliding projects had firm sturdy beams. The limp Rogallo parawing had structure, but in some version structure without rigid beams; his patent allowed stiffening the parawing. Paragliders using his base parawing certainly frequently used and still use sturdy members. For him to go to "strictly speaking" on the claim does not match history or use for paragliders. It is true that there are classes of paragliders that have very little sturdy members in the wing or tether part, but have sturdy members sometimes in the necessary massed payload part. The article we are working on may be a struggle to get the language that represents sport paragliding, but in doing so, classes and eras and careful language will be part of the solution. The current decade of sport paragliding has language published that regard stiffenings, rods, beams, inflated beams, for rigidizing the wing; even the Jalbert parafoil at first blush in limp fabric primary structure works to become sturdy via the method of ram-air for fulfillment of the structure. And the very LEI wings used for travel, energy, and sport jumping, gliding, play, etc. indicate primary structure set to closed bladders with positive pressure. Sport paragliding design has remained open to any of these primary structure changes; such is continually in the literature as a matter of open discussion; the strong era of paragliders at NASA and related companies' projects indicated that paraglider had primary structure of either fully limp or enhanced with beams of many natures. Today we see patents and also Paramontante tasting the rigid members. Not-rigid members does not equate to "no primary structure" unless and until some author sets the scene as some pet definition. Structure in engineering is a huge term and is not to be sloppily used unless one simply wants a gloss generalization that is idiosyncratic. Whittall raced ahead without defining his field of focus to cover the matter. Rogallo knew that he had in his Rogallo wing structure, but a structure that was not found in natural flying animals, one that couple with tethers over limp canopgy and a payload to form structure; his found primary structure was something that had apparently not been known well enough to move him off the patent approved slate. Same with Jalbert's parafoil in the limp-canopy form; in that limp-canopy form there was primary structure for which he was awarded a patent for the machine and its primary structure. And adding stiffened members to the limp-canopy Jalbert parafoil to form variants and evolutes does not go against paraglider as historically developed; and there is in current sport paragliding an openness to innovation and variants for the wing part. The paraglider having tethers to payload are part of the essential structure of paragliders; such was how NASA engineers dealt with employing the Rogallo wing for paraglider. The Barish glide wing follows the same; he got a patent for a machine that functioned with a primary structure that functioned to interact with air stream caused by restraining tethers to form a structure that was with "arcurate leading edge". Such shape description is what occurs when there is structure in the object. FAI is just one corporation, and not the only one dealing with paragliding. FAI has a change history in its class definitions. Other orgs can class things Noteworthy are the understandings and published matters from Rogallo, Barish, Jalbert, Richard Miller, Self-Soar Association, KITESA, Dan Poynter. The flow of language into more recent decades has wrestled with identity upon focus on sectors of hang gliding. Paragliding has struggle. Cousins, but same family tree? The present article can reference the struggle that is evident; the article is not supposed to expose Original Research in the article space. Whittall had his go at the struggle; FAI keeps struggling; but they do not represent the totality of the noteworthy literature or flow. A NPOV could present the panorama of expressions; but NPOV would not define wrongly against countering noteworthy variants. It will take work to show a NPOV on the matter, but the matter is worthy of our efforts. A NPOV does not declare that "all" of something is so, when there are "some" that are not; if some are not something, then a NPOV for WP would seek a phrasing that remains reflective of what is verifiable. Trial balloon: The Jalbert parafoil-based paragliders used in 2011 in sport paragliding have very little stiffening elements in the wing part of the paragliders. Those wings have an evolute of the Jalbert parafoil as their primary structure in a limp-canopy format. Joefaust (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, what part of "this article is about paragliding" did you fail to understand? We are defining what it is, not how it got here and how it was developed decades ago. This reads like content for your history page, again nothing to do with defining and current safety matters. And they are called paragliders Joe. Hence the title. They are not called Jalbert-Dogbert-paratrixy-based-widget-gliders. If you stopped trying to rename everything you came across you might have a positive influence on this subject. Besides, if you want to start a page called Jalbert-widgetty-parfoil-banana-gliders and include all of the above, go for it. Make sure and set up visitor tracking software and see what mileage you get.

Surely it's "rigid primary structure" as it says on the page now. The rest is waffle Joe, and you know it. 88xxxx (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Are paragliders hang gliders

I don't think Joe has thought through the consequences of bringing this one up. Noel Whittall's book I referenced above refers to them as "cousins", which seems a good description to me. However, the FAI puts hang gliders and paragliders together and recognises 5 categories [1], quoting:

• Class 1: the Hang gliders
• Class 2: the "Swift like" Rigid gliders
• Class 3: the Paragliders
• Class 4: the Ultralight sailplanes
• Class 5: the "Atos like" Rigid gliders

You sometimes hear paragliders referred to class 3 hang gliders, and so there is some justification for calling them hang gliders. However, if you follow that logic then they are far and away the largest category of hang gliders (21 times as many in France, 4 times as many in UK - sources ffvl.fr and bhpa.co.uk). If WP is to respect this hierarchy then the Hang gliding page should be changed to just contain this information about the categories (and approximate numbers and brief descriptions) and redirects to the main pages. The current contents of Hang gliding would then be moved to Hang gliders (class 1, 2 and 5) and a note added to Paragliding that a PG can be considered a class 3 HG. Personally I don't favour this, but if Joe insists on calling PG a type of HG then that is where we are going. Jontyla (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are other solution patterns than just two. Showing historical NPOV and avoid holding that the gleeful joy of practitioners of October 2011 holds the full story might be a solution path. Consider a hypothetical: A very rich boy falls in love with the Barretina Hyper Lite; he buys a million of them and hands them out to people in all nations free via Internet digital program-maker machines; in a week there are more of that single-skin partial double surface wings than any other wings; no ram-air in those, but Barish spirit and patent present. Should that rich boy's action make the article so the full spectrum of historical (before October 2011) sport paragliding be moot, not seen, not understood? Should then the article read: Paragliding is Rich Boy's world. Sport paragliding is not just Rich Boy's owned item, not just commercial competitive wing selling and using, but much more. That FAI is forgetting ---in one sense--- that in the above Class 1 are historical paragliders can be noted without loss by showing references that there is a default language agreement that the paragliders findable in Class 1 are of sufficient difference from the paragliders in Class 3 that the sort is made and used; the paragliders in Class 1 are often with one short tether that allows the pilot to manipulate the wing; the paragliders in Class 3 do not allow the pilot normally to grab the wing for flight control. The FAI will have to struggle with class definitions as use changes, not just design. Use does not define engineering struture. FAI is ever adjusting to use; they are not in the business of engineering strutures. The default term for the paragliders of short tether that lets the pilot grab the wing when he or she wants to do so for flight control has been for sport use "hang glider" while not relinguishing the solid history of the paraglider base of that group of glider kites. Similarly, the hang gliders that have long tethers that do not let the pilot grab the wing for control manipulation have been being with the default term of "paragliders" without having to forget that they are a form of hang glider. WP can do well to report the default terms and say so with reference; WP could also do well to hold referenced literature citation and phrasing that respect the rich aviation history that holds the structures as kites, hang gliders, gliders, glider-kites noteworthily, verifiably, significantly. Part of the entrenched significance involve the robust related world of servants to the sport ...the designers, engineers, inventors, patent workers, builders ...those that have to mechanically provide commercial products and face the legal world....all in part to support the dimension of sport paragliding that might be referred to broadly as Supplier realm. Joefaust (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You do like the history of paragliders Joe, you really ought to get some of this stuff down on a "History of PG" page.

Here we go again! Paragliders are classed as "Class 3 Hanggliders" by the sports competition body, FAI, such that they may be administered and competitions organised by the same body that organises them for related aerial sports. HG & PG are more like father and son really, as I see paragliders taking the free-flying space once occupied by hanggliders. They just developed a few years later and turned out to be more practical in terms of portability. Unfortunately for hanggliding, it turns out this is more important for most pilots than the other differences between the flying disciplines. So PG is far and away more popular now and in the short space of 25 year or so, PG has taken over almost completely the realm that was HG. This page is about paragliding Joe, even if the competition body describes it as a class of hangglider, as they do with the other 4 classes. Must check see if they exist on WP. If Ultralights, etc do not exist and redirect to their appropriate HG Class then we can talk about it, but I don't really see why we should even bother. 88xxxx (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jontyla, you suggested a scenario of moving the contents of an activity article to an article that features the name of the machine. Such reminds me of part of some of these struggles. Playing marbles is not the same as understanding what a marble is in itself. A person may be well served with an article about the activity of paragliding; another person might want to concentrate on the flight machine paraglider as a machine. The contents of the present article already show signs of possible need for spin offs: One admin has a tag asking for spin off into Wikiuniversity for the How-to and Training content; in such spin off editors wanting to develop the How To and Training would have appropriate space. The present article space is not appropriate for the How To and Training detailing. Likewise, the present article is not an appropriate place to give robust attention to the full history of paraglider harnesses. There is an article started on the wing type parafoil. And parawing and a redirecting page Paraglider research vehicle. An article that was on the machine hang glider Hang glider (flying machine) one day might be part of the solution; in such an article one could find the variants of the machine including the ones with default term of paraglider. Joefaust (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

For consensus work: Phrase "blade parafoil" non-OR research citation invited

Google copies and people have copied this article's "or blade parafoil" to a high degree. Where is non-original research citation for the two-word phrase? Some participants call their system "blades", but what is the published source for the two-word "blade parafoil" which source does not simply branch from this article? WP is not to be the maker of such key phrases, but the announcer of verifiable key phrases. At least that is my newbie understanding about WP. The use in the article at this moment is a claim that in aeronautical engineering, "blade parafoil" is known. If it is false that the term is known significantly in "aeronautical engineering" then such should not be written. If the term is known kiteboarding and the like by users and sellers, then that could be referenced. I seek citation for "aeronautical engineering" while appreciating that users of the parafoil kites and wings sometimes call the wings "blade" or "blades". Perhaps a change in claim is needed in the article on this matter. It appears that OR has been installed via this article upon this two-word phrase. Joefaust (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what a blade parafoil is, and I've been flying over 15 years. What is it? Jontyla? If it is a kiteboard system, then go edit the kiteboard page. We have a lot of wind turbines where I live and their blades are shaped just as a parafoil, if it something to do with this go edit the wind turbine page. If it is a paraglider, let me know what it is, I might want to fly one. 88xxxx (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I googled it. A "blade aerofoil" is an aerodynamic term used to describe a rotating blade shaped like an aerofoil. That solves that then. We all agree we don't need to get into aeronautical engineering terminology and a paraglider is hardly a rotating blade, such as those found on helicopters, etc. 88xxxx (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article again. Unlike last time, there is no fixed duration to this protection--the article has been fully protected indefinitely. This does not me "forever". Rather, it means that it is protected until such time as you all have proven here on the talk page that you are capable of working together without edit warring. One way to do that is to work towards and achieve a consensus on individual edits; do this enough times, and I or another admin will lift the protection. There's plenty of discussions going on here, so when you resolve one, all you have to do is add {{Edit protected}} (but don't include the "tlx|" part), and it will flag the article as having an edit that people agree on. Do not make an edit request if you do not have consensus. Additionally, do not simply walk away from this article under the logic of "well, now it can't get messed up anymore". This intent of protection is not to choose one version of the article as the fixed version, but to force everyone to discuss their changes and achieve consensus first before introducing them into the article. Should discussion simply die out, after a period of time (weeks to months, that is) any editor can request that protection be lifted at WP:RFPP

I also considered whether or not to roll back the page to just after the last full protection expired. And, in the end, I've decided that I simply cannot, per WP:IAR. The old version was significantly, terribly worse than the new version. The old version was POV, contained far fewer citations, was imprecise...reverting to that version does direct, clear harm to the encyclopedia, so I cannot do it. Now, this does not in any way mean that I endorse every change that JoeFaust made. In fact, some of the changes do seem to be a problem to me. The correct choice at this point is to get a consensus on specifically what needs to be removed. Heck, if you can 1) get verification of the previous facts, and 2) a consensus that the old wording was better, I'll even go back to that. If anyone wants a review of this decision, I recommend raising it in the discussion I already started on the administrator's noticeboard, which you can access at WP:AN#Edit warring, protection, and the aftermath. Should a consensus among uninvolved editors arise there that a rollback is needed, I will do it and eat crow.

Finally, looking at the discussion that has transpired since yesterday...Joefaust--you have to stop. First, you are introducing too many discussions all at once. Second, your massive walls of text are a form of what we call tendentious editing. While it may not have been your intent, such long texts overwhelm everyone else who wants to discuss the issue, and seem to be introducing all sorts of irrelevant details. I strongly recommend that you all pick no more than 3 matters to deal with, deal with them completely and fully, stopping only if you absolutely cannot reach consensus. And then, at that point, it's time for dispute resolution (i.e., ways of getting other uninvolved editors to join the conversation and help). I will guide you all through that process if you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My intent was simply to discuss the matters; I will study the new-word-for-me "tendentious editing" ...thanks. I have a different slant on the relevancy, though; but I guess you do not want to put up a discussion per point for your claim; but if you do, I would participate in a relevancy talk; until then it seems like that won't be the course. Oh well. I will wait for POINT 1 for working; anyone? Joefaust (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did just make an edit to the page: in the GPS section, there were two links to GPS software sites. Such links are expressly forbidden by WP:EL--only links that are strictly necessary to a page can be included, and those links almost always are put in a separate "External links" section at the end of the page. But we can't provide any links to specific companies who provide services related to paragliding. Such a link would only be appropriate on a page specifically about that product; i.e., if "CompeGPS" had a Wikipedia article, a link to their site could be on that page, but no other, not even a page listing various GPS software.). Normally I admins shouldn't edit fully protected pages, even when there are problems, but linking directly to companies rises to the level of spam, and so needs to go. For instance, that entire section needs to be re-written, since it's 1) not sourced, 2) full of POV words. Those problems, though, are not so critically that I need to make them before you all come to a consensus on how to handle them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I took two more out of "Equipment". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about changes to locked page

If we are to make any progress at all then we are going to have to be more systematic about this. I suggest that we create subsections of this section (3 equals signs rather than 2) for each subject we discuss and that we have only one such topic 'open' at any one time. When we have resolved it we can ask for a proposed text to be edited into the article and move on to the next subject.

We need to keep contributions to the debate short and to the point. Can we try to keep the indentation standard (I'm an offender on this one), that is, have one more colon than the comment we're responding to. Thus a back and forth conversation should become more and more indented.

I propose we cover the article in order, but that the first topic should be more general, specifically:

The Article Structure

Question: Does the article as it stands have a reasonable structure?

• should the structure stay the same?
• should it be reorganised, and if so, how?
• should it be split into sub articles?

My view is that it is OK as it is. I would support a simplification of the history section with a link to an article started by Joe which delves more deeply into the historical background. Jontyla (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some WP admin has tagged the article encouraging extracting the How To and Train content for Wikiuniversity or Wikibooks. That seems like a structure issue.Joefaust (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the best moment to consider this. I agree that it needs to be a discussion topic. I feel that it should be dealt with next, after we have finished at least a first pass at discussing the structure. Jontyla (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree on that. Spin-off can occur at any time. And a start elsewhere might already be extant, in which case merge or copy/paste could happen. Wait.Joefaust (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the article headings, as they are now, are about right. They are similar to other free-flying sport pages (hanggliding, gliding, ultralights, etc) and strike the right balance between enough overview information and too much. Maybe some of the "How-To" stuff can be hived off to another location, maybe the "Fast Descents" techniques too, but the main sections seem fine to me. 88xxxx (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My view is that the article structure is NOT OK. It seems like there is ownership operating to limit the scope and preventing growth of the article. WP encouraging growth and change; when new sections grow to be too large, then spin-off to sub articles is standard encouraged practice. Many more sections would serve readers reaching to know Paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a list of the main headings that you suggest? Jontyla (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The red is for suggestions at the moment. The black is the extant article. As we work, I will edit my support-talk tool. Shy from the admin warning of wall text, I refer to a working file easily reached on the Internet: I do not know if WP Talk page allows my posting the URL; advice from admin is requested to complete this response. Upon approval, I'll post the URL for the changing draft. Joefaust (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I worked the intended copy to a page anyone may edit; even I will edit it: User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding

Err, Joe. You have more sections than there are books on paragliding! What you need to ask yourself is "what are the important details that should be on this page so as to inform the general public about Paragliding?" I don't believe it should include absolutely everything you can possibly think of that might be attached to a paraglider. For example, "history of harnesses", in my view this should be found on a detailed page describing "paragliding harnesses", which we should perhaps link to. If your objective here is to destroy the Paragliding page by obliterating the main content and overloading the reader, then you are going to struggle to get a consensus of opinion for it. Second point: Why are you attempting to rename the parts of a paraglider or paragliders themselves? You may not be best qualified to recommend sections here Joe, if you don't actually know what the components of a modern paraglider are called. Where can I buy a Jalbert parafoil? None of the manufacturers have one for sale, and here's why. It's a parachute or a kite, not a paraglider. Likewise a Rogallo paraglider, which is a hangglider or a parachute. You seem to be mixing historical terminology with modern paragliders. An interest in the history of our sport is fine, it just needs to kept in check and put in perspective. (and most of it on another page) 88xxxx (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone, especially you Joe, have a quick look at the hangglider page as it stands now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hang_gliding&oldid=455077655 Are your proposals anything like that? No. Is the current page closer to that? Yes. Why? Because it is an overview of the sport. 88xxxx (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP has guides about spin-off for forming sub articles. There seems to be other helpful remarks concerning article structure and sub article matters: Help:Wikipedia: The Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Building a Stronger Encyclopedia/Better Articles: A Systematic Approach Joefaust (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Our present working section is yet to respect WP:OWNERSHIP. Each of us individually and in couples, etc. are to keep that guide, I suppose. I admit that when I first made a couple of sourced edits, then: BOOM, there is someone that might have an ownership issue going! This consensus effort will make progress if that guide is upheld. Joefaust (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem here is WP:OWNERSHIP. Very little of the article has been written by any of us. Jontyla (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ownership can occur at any moment. Trying to force what an editor cannot put in a section could be a clue of ownership. Trying to suppress various paragliding noteworthy matters using various tactics could clue ownership. WP writes about many other actions that can clue ownership tendencies. I am keeping my reflection going to avoid ownership in myself; I welcome polite caution notes from admin and fellow contributors. Ownership could be applied over perspective, over what is appropriate, over what is core matter, etc. Joefaust (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No-one "owns" this page, and I don't believe anyone has laid claim to. The content will be decided by consensus under the guidance of Qwyrxian, the admin, who will advise us as we go along. My understanding of this is that if you (Joe), or I, or anyone wishes to add or remove anything to/from this page we must reach a consensus to do so. 88xxxx (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Joefaust, regarding your draft article, such an article would never be allowed in Wikipedia. No question. Take a look at WP:Article size for some direction in this matter. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a set of books. Now, it may well be that a number of those details could become articles on their own, but many of them could not--WP:NOT (one of our core policies) says that our job is not to explain every single detail on a given subject--rather, we're looking to give people a full but concise overview of topics.

On ownership, yes, ownership is bad, and yes it can happen at any time. That does not mean, however, that any time some disagrees with you, that they are violating WP:OWN. Since ownership is a behavioral issue, I recommend that if you think you're seeing such a problem, come tell me on my talk page to keep the behavioral issues separate from the content discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Structure: missing-sections talk

• What sections would grow the article (if a section becomes too large, spin-off via WP guides is natural)?
• Sections may point/link to its main article (when a main article is extant).

My view is that noteworthy sections are missing. The article according to WP guides would remain open to anyone adding sections of noteworthy matter on topic.Joefaust (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

One section at a time Joe, as the admin said, "slow down". We're all on different time-zones here (most of us will be in Europe as are most PG pilots & you're in the US). This is going to take some months to slowly work through and come to a consensus. If we want to get it right, and improve what is there already, that is, and I think we all do. 88xxxx (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

You all can go ahead and work on "big picture" items like article structure and missing sections first, if thinking top-down is easier for you, but most editors in my experience often work best (and can find consensus more easily) if they start bottom up. Specifically, a very large portion of this article is unsourced and/or non-neutral and/or non-encyclopedic (how-to), and perhaps before you consider what needs to be added, it might be better to figure out how to fix the stuff that's already there and/or remove it. For example:

• Most of "Equipment" is unsourced, parts are POV.
• "Control" is completely unsourced, and probably falls at least partially into WP:NOTHOWTO territory.
• "Flying" is completely unsourced, falls at least partially into WP:NOTHOWTO, and has an improper tone.
• "Safety" is unsourced. I know that earlier you were working on getting citations for that; however, I also know that this is one of the most contested sections, so it may be safer to leave this editing until later (it might be best to at least try to build up some good will in easy consensus building before tackling the contentious stuff.
• "Learning to fly" is unsourced.

Again, if you prefer to work as started above, that's fine--you're the ones who have to figure out all of the details (though, of course, let me know if you need to find ways to get the opinion of uninvolved editors). This is merely a suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some suggested changes to the Intro: 1. I suggest removing: "Paragliders are also used in commerce". This is misleading; it is indeed possible to pay for a flight on a paraglider as a passenger, but "used in commerce" suggests something different. The source quoted is clearly referring only to passenger flights for pleasure. This doesn't need to be in the intro. I'd also suggest removing "other non-sport activities". The quoted source refers to police use of paramotors -- a rare and specific instance that doesn't need to be in the intro.

2. Origins: I suggest removing: "Paragliding developed as a natural progression of hang gliding". The quoted source doesn't say this; it says "paragliding is a relatively new form of hang gliding."

I also suggest removing: "Paragliders are a natural evolution of the Domina Jalbert parafoil." This statement is unsourced, and "natural evolution" is an odd phrase whose meaning isn't clear.

3. Towing: I suggest removing the word "static", as paragliders are launched both by tows from a winch at a fixed point on the ground, and by tows from moving vehicles (trucks and boats). The quoted source in fact shows towing from a boat. Manormadman (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And another suggestion: the article should not start "Paragliding generally refers to the recreational and competitive flying sport". The article is supposed to be about paragliding, not about the word "paragliding". So it should say something like "Paragliding is a recreational and competitive flying sport."Manormadman (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've made what I consider to be minor edits to the page--I don't see anything on the talk page specifically preventing my edit, but then, there's a lot of words here. If I can throw in an opinion: the Equipment section needs to be trimmed (that radio and GPS stuff is utterly trivial), most of the Control section needs to be removed (indeed, how-to), and the same goes for most of the Flying section. BTW, all of that is unverified, of course. When I got to Safety, I couldn't help myself, and this is an example of the kind of editing that is necessary to make this article resemble an entry in an encyclopedia. If my edits are found objectionable, a friendly admin will no doubt find it in their hearts to revert them, which will be fine by me. I don't want to edit against consensus, and it seems to me that there is consensus at least for the kind of edits I've suggested and made. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, I think it's unfortunate that you've removed the reference to portability. I think one of the notable qualities of a paraglider is that it can be packed into a rucksack and is, therefore, by far the most easily portable type of aircraft. Here's a source: http://www.bhpa.co.uk/paraglide/index.php Manormadman (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for weighing in. You're referring to this:

  One of the benefits that a paraglider has over many other forms of aviation is its portability. Everything that a pilot needs to fly a paraglider may be packed into a single rucksack and carried on the pilot's back, in a car or on public transport. In comparison with other forms of aviation this substantially simplifies travel to a suitable take off location, widens the selection of a place to land and greatly simplifies return travel when making cross country flights.

  I removed it since I don't see this as encyclopedic information at all; it's the equivalent of saying that commercial air travel has the great advantage of being able to bring a guitar and having a cocktail. Moreover, the reference you cite is hardly an independent, reliable source. On a sidenote, this article suffers from two related problems: an overdose of unencyclopedic "how-to" information (complete with chattiness and excessive detail) and a total lack of reliable sources. Instead of adding various websites to organizations and commercial outfits, someone could go and look at some books, some real books. That would be very useful. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of books: here's one, of direct relevance to the article. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how a book discussing the economic impact of paragliding on one specific Portuguese town is relevant to this article? Manormadman (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, I respectfully submit that you're mistaken. An encyclopaedia should define and describe a paraglider, and part of that is saying how it differs from other aircraft. The essentials, as I see it, are 1. It's the lightest form of aircraft. 2. It's the slowest form of steerable aircraft (only a balloon is slower). 3. It's the cheapest form of aircraft. 4. It's non-rigid; it's made almost entirely of cloth and string. I can easily find sources for all of these (and by the way, I don't think that Wikipedia insists on books rather than internet sources, does it?) -- but I won't bother if you're going to edit out these points! I'm often asked about paragliding by my friends and family, and they're often surprised to hear that you can carry a paraglider around on your back. Part of the essential nature of a paraglider is that it's light, cheap and slow.

By the way, why are you able to edit the article, while I'm not? Regards, Manormadman (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• well, I'm able to edit this because I am an administrator, that's why. My concern is that the article, even while there are content disputes, not be used for misinformation or spam. Also, I've been here for a while, so I submit that I may also have a decent idea of what an encyclopedia should be. We do not list (certainly not in the lead) advantages and disadvantages of one subject over another. Tuna and herring are both fish, but they are not compared in the lead of their respective articles--though tuna, raw, tastes much better than raw herring. Wikipedia does not require published sources, no--it requires reliable sources. None of the links I removed qualify as such. (If you disagree, you can present a case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard).

  As for the book link I offered (there are many more), if you don't think that some reliably published facts on the economic impact of paragliding (in general--not just in one town) is of encyclopedic value, then you and I have very different ideas of what an encyclopedia is. I don't think that an encyclopedia ought to give advice on how to safely fly and land a glider aircraft--and fortunately, there is a guideline that agrees with me: WP:NOTHOWTO. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm sure that the article on the whale shark says it's the biggest fish. I'm sure that the article on the Concorde says it was the fastest airliner of its time. I'm sure that the article on the Spruce Goose says it was the biggest aircraft of its time.

I went through the book that you quoted, and found only references to the effect on the Portuguese town in question. Now, what's interesting to a reader of an encyclopaedia: A) Paragliders are the slowest, lightest and cheapest aircraft in the world; or B) Careful evaluation of the economic impact of paragliding on a Portuguese town has failed to prove that local people are right in thinking that it benefits their economy? Manormadman (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons to avoid such claims is that the claims are very contestable and distracts. Indeed, reliable sources can be found that show that PG as used in sport by a person ARE NOT the most portable or lightest or slowest aircraft in the world. Notes in discussion already brought forward counterexamples.Joefaust (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, which aircraft (capable of carrying a person) weighs less than a paraglider? Manormadman (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Drmies, I fully support your removal of spam links and how-to stuff.Manormadman (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Removing the links and your "common sense" tidying is much appreciated by those of us who would sincerely like to see a reasonable description of paragliding appear on this page. I am of the view that any page should be contributed to by those who know the subject best, and corrected by you WP experts when we mess up or fail to understand the WP rules. So naturally, I'd think paraglider pilots are best positioned to determine what are the key features of paragliders. As a pilot, I am of the view that failing to refer to a paragliders portability when discussing aircraft, is akin to omitting the fact that a unicycle has only one wheel when discussing bicycles. It's kind of an important feature. What do you think? Hiving off the how-to info would definitely be a good idea. I have books, most pilots do I suppose, and when the page is unlocked I will endeavour to insert some reliable references which, as you say, has been sorely missing. 88xxxx (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the book you've quoted is not a book on paragliding, and if your intention is to jolt us into finding references it's a great plan. This is a book on paragliding: Touching Cloudbase, A Complete Guide to Paragliding, and so is this: Paragliding, the Complete Guide 88xxxx (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I've just turned on auto-archiving. That means that once a day, a bot checks this talk page, and any thread that has had no reply in the last 30 days old will automatically be moved to archives. These archives will be linked at the top of this page. This way, no old messages are lost, but we also don't have to have such a long talk page, including messages from 7 years ago. If anyone objects to the archiving or thinks the timing is too short or long, please let me know in this thread and I can modify the parameters. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)