Talk:Ultraflight Lazair

Lazair in The Gods Must Be Crazy II?

There are some reports that a late variant was used as the basis for the airplane in the film "The God's must be crazy II". Can anyone confirm this? Thanks --Avimimus (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This website [1] seems to think so. From the photos that I have seen it looks like it was a Lazair II with full enclosure. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC) . I am Dale Kramer, the Lazair designer. There are definitely Lazair parts used in its construction but it was HIGHLY modified and my factory never sold an enclosure for the two place. I do not want my name associated with such an ugly cockpit enclosure ;) DaleKramer (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Userbox

Any other editors who have soloed a Lazair can put this box on their user page, if they so desire. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Code	Result
|{{User:Ahunt/Lazair}}	This user has soloed a Lazair.	Usage

Updates

Hello ahunt, I have watched the Lazair Wikipedia entry over the years and wondered who was doing such a good job with it and I think it was you ;). As you have seen, I have just recently decided to contribute to the page and have made some changes that were on my ToDo list and I have finally gotten to them... DaleKramer (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi nice to talk with you. However, I have to note that as the designer, manufacturer and seller of the aircraft that is the subject of the article, you are in a conflict of interest with regards to this article, which means you should note be editing it and instead suggest changes here, along with the references to support what you would like to see changed. There is a reason why these articles are not written by the people who were involved in the subject. For instance Justin Trudeau does not write the Justin Trudeau article. Wikipedia articles are not based on personal reminiscences, but are based on reliable sources. So far you have added a lot of original research and personal opinion that is not supported by the cited refs or contradicts them. I would ask that you stop editing the article and instead, as explained at WP:COI, list the things you think should be changed here on the talk page and supply reliable sources to back them up, for discussion. This is an encyclopedia, so we can't add anything without sources cited. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In principle I agree with that and I will stop now, undo what you want and I will leave it incorrect until I may decide to battle it out here to have it corrected ... which is also not good for history if I do not choose to come back in order to battle for correctness ... DaleKramer (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, so what is included in articles is all about citing references to make it all verifiable. You have added a lot of material that is unsourced. I can tag it all for references needed, but unless you can supply them it will all get eventually removed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with references [1], [2], [5] and [10], could you provide me with links to the document/s?

How bizarre is it that, it appears to me, current citations in this article are linking to documents from people who may have misquoted me or have incorrect facts in them...

Some References do not even take you to the supposed source that verifies their appropriate statements in the article.

The statement that the Lazair was a contraction of "Lazy-Air" did come from me and has been quoted may times over the last 40 years. The people propagating that 'simple' single reason, simply ignored the other two reasons I told them at the time (I have always told people all 3 reasons). The single reason cited is only a partial answer to that question, how bizarre is it that I now have to get a source other than me to fully explain where the the name Lazair came from....

I won't go much further here to get the correct facts out there in this article.

I think a lot of the recently added 'Citation needed' labels should be removed.

Please whittle your 'Citation needed' list down to something reasonable before I start having a plethora of 'Citations needed' labels added.

Why do I need a citation to correct the name of the Manufacturer/s of the Lazair when the manufacturer that was originally there, was factually incorrect? The factually incorrect manufacturer is what needs the 'Citation needed' flag.

There has to be some reasonableness to adding 'Citation needed' labels....

I also, disagree with your continued removal of anything that highlights the 'Noteworthy Accolades' of the Lazair, which have hard verifiable links to sources in their References, as opposed to References that have no links attached or which are written by the person citing the Reference.

I have not had the patience to even fully review all of the numerous 'Citations needed' which you placed on my edits, but the above are a few of my replies.

One thing for sure, I will view the validity of ALL Wikipedia articles with much more skeptical eyes in the future....

I am on my patience limit with trying to have the errors that existed in the page corrected... DaleKramer (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged all the the claims you made that didn't source any verifiable reference. If you like I can remove the tags, but then the text has to go as well. As I noted this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, autobiography or a place for personal reminiscences: everything added has to be properly sourced. As far as the desire to add a list of "Noteworthy Accolades" for your design, please see WP:PEACOCK. As I have said, our guidelines at WP:COI explain that you should not be editing this article, but instead request changes.

Some of the references cited are paper publications. I will check the online ones that are in the article and make sure that they are working, if possible. See WP:LINKROT for some information on that.

I have explained several times what is needed to add text here: WP:RS. I haven't removed your text added, just tagged it where it needs sources. If you can provide the sources for all your text then great, otherwise, at some point in the future, someone will remove the unsourced additions. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed all the on-line refs so they are all working now, formatted your references and archived them so they don't break in the future and moved the museum aircraft as per WP:Aircontent. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, be prepared for a lot of 'Citations needed' placed on existing text of the article, prior to my edits.

I will begin a search for Wikipedia articles that separate a list of 'Noteworthy Accolades' for the subject of the article, my memory tells me that I have seen many articles like that.

Having the Lazair honoured with a stamp, is not an 'Operational History' entry...

There are still no documents that come up when References 1,2,5 an 10 are clicked... DaleKramer (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are paper magazine references from Kitplanes, and COPA Flight, as noted. I have moved the stamp para up to the lede para. If you find any aircraft articles that have Noteworthy Accolades then we will flag that for fixing. The proper page lay out for aircraft articles is at WP:Aircontent. - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a fair amount of cleanup still. I will try and get to it tomorrow if I can find the time. DaleKramer you did a great job on the planes, and thank you for coming here to do something about our mistakes. I wish everybody cared. but the way Wikipedia works can be very frustrating until one gets used to it. Imagine for example if every famous politician and evil empire were allowed to say what they like on their own page! So we have strict rules about having to verify all content via independent sources. So thank you again for bearing with Ahunt, who is an experienced editor and should see you right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope I will still be allowed to ad my 'Citation needed' flags on content that has no valid reference under the same rules as are being applied to my edits. I believe that when a COI is the most reliable source of information on an article topic, then that should be allowed to stand unless there is proof that the statements are not true. To have any other way of obtaining the most reliable information on an articles topic would be a disservice to history. I have strong opinions on that and I am surprised that such a hard stance is being taken with me. The COI policy document does not forbid COI involvement, I think I am that special case... You are going to get me to giveup trying to get the truth out there, is that what you want. Right now if I do not provide sources other than my word for all the nit picky facts that were 'Citation needed' flagged, then the correct history will revert to the incorrect history, just because someone randomly said it was true and in fact it is not true... That will be a sad day... (Sorry, I forgot to sign this edit at the time of the edit, I have signed it late, so that it would not appear that I was trying to make an anonymous comment...) DaleKramer (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, with regard to a category similar to 'Noteworthy Accolades', please see the 'Awards and honors' section for the Glenn Curtiss Wikipedia article. (I am sure there are many more...) DaleKramer (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt, how does the fact that there are 5 unlinked references (the numbers have just changed but they are all authored by 'Hunt, Adam') which are 'magazine articles' and apparently not available for scrutiny, change the fact that, without the actual article, there is no way to make sure that it is a good reference that backs up the statements which reference them? DaleKramer (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not an 'evil politician' or the like and I stand by my integrity and public reputation, again, I should be the exception to COI here... Personally, I don't see why you couldn't let the evil politician rant here, I am sure that instantly, provable references would surface that would end up removing any incorrect statements from his public rant... That is better than having incorrect statements stand for years or maybe even forever if I give up trying to correct them here... I will try to withhold further comment here until Steelpillow has had a chance to clean up the article... DaleKramer (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

On information tagged as unsourced I am mostly deleteing it, on the basis that there is a fair amount here now and it is better to have a small hole than a false claim. I am not looking at who tagged it. So far I have just looked at the lead section, there is still a way to go.

Issues of point of view must be treated in an unbiased way by editors. Of course, one does not have to be Dr. Evil to push one's own strong POV. You would be surprised how many editors try to impersonate other people, pretend they are a large group, cite bogus sources and other subterfuges. As an online community we find claims of personal identity hard to verify and so we mistrust all such claimed sources on principle, as it is fairer that way and we don't get into problems over which editor is the more expert. On the other hand, we also assume good faith on every editor's part unless they demonstrate the opposite. It is a difficult balance, believe me, and our community processes have been forged in some darned hot fires over the years. You might find some guidance at WP:EXPERT if you have not seen it yet.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

BEWARE - The Lazair truth exists only in the edit history of this article

Ok I give up now, I am the designer of the Lazair series of ultralight aircraft that were manufactured by my companies, UltraFlight Incorporated and UltraFlight Manufacturing Ltd.

You can only find that FACT and MANY others in the edit history of the article (unless they disappear in the future), in edits that I once made to the page and that were undone.

The 'truth', as presented by Wikipedia, would certainly be changed to my version, if the legal system were to have a look here.

For instance, a lot of the current errors in the article would be viewed as hearsay due to the fact that the article claims that Dale Kramer did this or that, because of something...

When I speak about the complete reasons for which I did something, it would NOT be considered hearsay...

When I say the Lazair kit price was $2,495 US in 1979, that information should stand unless someone else shows overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect...

Why does the currently listed price of USD $4600 (1983) stand without a 'citation needed' tag, or just removed the way my addition to that price (USD $2495 (1979)) was simply removed ?

I am not going to battle any further here to have all the errors corrected...

Someday I will put the truth out there on a webpage that I (or my ancestors) control.... DaleKramer (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, no, please don't give up! Your help is incredibly useful in highlighting these issues, even if resolving them satisfactorily is a lot harder.

On your company name/s, I ask only that you cite documentary evidence. Surely there is a Canadian business registry accessible somewhere? (My Jane's for 1980-81 has a section on homebuilds but under Canada it jumps from Replica Plans to Western, no sign of UltraFlight). Perhaps some other industry directory? I was able to cite a certificate which records it as "UltraFlight Ltd." I also found a trademarks database recording "UltraFlight Inc." I could find nothing else on the Internet. The article also mentions an "UltraFlight Sales Ltd". So I am faced with finding further independent evidence as to whether one or another or, at different times, several may have been true.

On the costs I simply removed the tagged cost and left the other. But my edits are not the last word and we probably need to level the score there. @Ahunt: I am not familiar with how we deal with prices, especially when manufacture has been discontinued, can you advise?

Are all the current errors tagged yet? I do want to remove them, even if I feel unable for whatever reason to insert any given replacement fact.

Paradoxically perhaps, if you ever do put up that web page under your own name, that will make it easier for us to add the information here, as we would need only deem that bit of your page reliable and we can then cite it in support. Such bureaucracy! If you cannot stand it all, I quite understand, though I should be sorry to lose your expertise.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On the form of the company name, it is fine (as far as I know) to use the trademarked form in the content, but when it comes to article titles, we ignore trademarked forms and stick to normal sentence case. So the title must remain Ultraflight Lazair. I know, it sounds mental and some of us think it is. You really do not want to plow through the arguments as to whether the "MAX" in Boeing 737 MAX is a trademark (max) or a proper name (Max) or a type designation (MAX)! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you are getting my point, I do not care about Wikipedia sacred policies, they are stopping the untruth from being corrected here..

Sadly, the original (incorrect) posted data will remain the truth because I will NOT jump through hoops to correct it.

Where were the hoops when the incorrect info was published...

Where are the 5 documents authored by 'Hunt, Adam' (currently cited 22 times out of the 52 reference citings in the article) which seem to know more than I do about the Lazair? I need to peruse them for accuracy...

So many articles have been written over the years where much of their content came from interviews with me. Fortunately most of them published a correct interpretation of what I said, but a few did not. Wikipedia seems to take articles as gospel, such a shame...

My memory should be enough, over having some British registration document error, where neither their government, nor the registrant had any interest in confirming the legal name of the manufacturer... If hard evidence comes to light which proves my memory is faulty, then and only then should you flag it 'citation needed', notify me by email of the 'citation needed' flag and then give me a chance to prove it or delete it after the standard appropriate time period.

So, I will not provide anything more than my memory here, which I have already provided and those memory edits have been removed.

They should not have been removed unless/until someone cites HARD evidence, not like that weak British document, that my memory failed me.

At that point I will gladly be the person to undo my comment...

A note at the top of the article such that there are 'from memory' statements from the 'father' of the articles subject should be enough... and that note would give the conspiracists even more energy to find that hard evidence to counter my memory...

With regard to replacing 'Ultraflight Lazair' in the name with 'UltraFlight Lazair', again a questionable Wikipedia policy will lead to most/some people seeing that word as 'ultralight' (without the f) which is precisely why we capitalize the F in the first place (more often we capitalized the whole word to ULTRAFLIGHT, where again, it is easier to distinguish the 'F'). If you chose to stay within that title policy, please just remove the word Ultraflight from the title...

Why was MAX capitalized in the 'Boeing 737 MAX' article? That is justification to me that 'UltraFlight Lazair' should be used here...

I am sure you know the answer to this so, could you save me some research time by answering this simple question, is there a way for me to receive email notifications of when someone places a 'citation needed' flag on some text I have changed/added to an article? DaleKramer (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"I do not think you are getting my point, I do not care about Wikipedia sacred policies." Oh, I got the point all right. That was why I wrote, "Such bureaucracy! If you cannot stand it all, I quite understand".

"...Wikipedia sacred policies ... are stopping the untruth from being corrected here." No, absolutely not. I am asking you to cooperate with our sacred policies by marking the untruths so they can be deleted.

"Where were the hoops when the incorrect info was published." Sadly lacking, it seems. It's high time to play catch-up and un-publish them, but I don't know which they are and am hoping you will highlight any remaining for me.

"Where are the 5 documents authored by 'Hunt, Adam'" I wish I knew. The Kitplanes website does not have back numbers going back far enough. I hope to visit the National Aerospace Library next month, I might get lucky there.

"Why was MAX capitalized in the 'Boeing 737 MAX' article?" Because somebody created the article that way, then some folks complained, but no consensus over trademark/name/designation status for that particular case could be reached, so the policy is then to leave things as they are and the discussion was closed with "No consensus for change". You can often recognise experienced Wikipedians in the street because we have prosthetic arms, having gnawed the original ones off out of sheer frustration (I jest but I can assure you that you are not alone).

"Is there a way for me to receive email notifications?" You can receive notifications for any changes to an article or its talk page, but no finer-grained than that:

1. In the tab bar almost at the top of the page, click the white star. This should a) turn it blue to indicate that this has b) added it to your watchlist.
2. In the very top user menu bar above that, click "Preferences" to open that page:
3. In the User profile tabsheet, scroll down to Email options. Set your email address and, a bit below, set the option for "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed".
4. Click the [Save] button at the bottom.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I have chosen to add just one 'Citation needed' flag (not sure why the syntax did not work...). If I were to add flags for the rest of the article, or remove text as my text has been removed, under the same rules that were used for how my text was treated, there would not be much left, so that is where I will stop.

I can however see that you truly wish to have the truth published and applaud some of your edits. If people ever want to see the text that is in question here, I hope that they will always be able to search through the articles edit history for edits under my name.

I have set up my preferences as you so graciously suggested and I will be 'low effort lurking' out there to see whether something bothers me enough again to come back... Thanks for your sincere effort to work within your guidelines in order to address my concerns, sadly it did not fully succeed...

P.S. Please fix the link that has been broken which links to a hi-res image of the stamp, currently Reference [3]...

AND, I am still quite hurt by the fact that I am not considered a reliable source for information that originated from me or that can only be verified by me (as noted in the many 'Citation need' flags that still exist on the few of my edits that still remain)... DaleKramer (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

AND, just because it was so easy to find this, I have decided to post a link to it. So do with the article which I wrote in it, what you think best... https://www.wgc.mb.ca/static/freeflight/04_04.pdf DaleKramer (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the free flight link! This is exactly the kind of thing we need to defeat the bureaucracy. With your words sanctioned by an independent journal editor, we can now declare your obituary of Peter Corley to be a reliable source. I do not have time now, just managed to clean up the Canada Post stamp links, but hope to follow through the free flight reference in a day or two. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The hurt is understood. One can only plead that encyclopedia editors have to do things their way. I have original material on several topics (including a biography of J. W. Dunne, inventor of washout and the tailless swept wing among other things) looking for a publisher before I can post any of it here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Number built

DaleKramer you added a comment to the sentence "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" with the comment "Unsupported claim. The fully researched claim should be quoted from the Canada Post Details magazine reference". As far as I can see the Kitplanes Magazine is a reliable source. It is not clear what your issue is - are you saying that the statement it not true and more of another type has been built? The Canadian Details magazine only says there is more Lazairs registered than any other basic ultralights which doesnt appear to be related to the most built Canadian aircraft. Perhaps you can explain what your issue is with the current statement and/or reference, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them below:)

Until someone presents the text of the KitPlanes Magazine article, it can only be conjecture that the statement in question is true and that it comes from evidence of a reliable source. I have not found the articles on the internet. Ahunt should have a copy, as authors usually keep copies of magazines that their articles are in, but he does not care to post images of his magazine articles for us. Do you have a copy of that article? I will have a copy of his 3 KitPlane articles, that are referenced in the Lazair article, in a few days. I will take pictures of the articles, post them and comment on their validity.

I personally know of the extensive and critical research that Canada Post did over a 1 year period and that they would have said "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" if they could have verified that information. That is why, their wording should be quoted, if any, in that section.

And, ultimately, since the Lazair was manufactured by my private companies, there is nobody on this earth that has direct knowledge of how many Lazair kits were built, other than me or people who were close to me. I CAN tell you that the 2000 figure is incorrect but since the relevant company records are gone, my best guess is between 1000 and 1200. I have never seen a report on as to whether there are any other Canadian manufactured aircraft series had more built than the Lazair had...

Lets wait and see how well the Hunt articles support that claim... (Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them) DaleKramer (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, we have to assume good faith here, the kitplanes is a reliable source its not our job to dig into the thinking behind it, that said if you believe that not be true the easiest way is to counter the statement is to provide evidence that it is wrong. The Canada Post article doesnt do that so we need something reliable to use. The "2000" built is no longer in the article as it wasnt supported by a reference, I dont think we mention how many kits were sold or aircraft built. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly a very scant list of Ultraflight production lists construction numbers from A001 to A838 (which is the Smithsonian aircraft) although there is one odd one listed as A950. There also appears to be a B sequence with the highest known being B027. Not what we consider a reliable source but just mentioned for interest. (I also note it lists A345 a Lazair C-IALP in the Florida Air Museum might be worth adding if I can find a reliable source.) MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Only time for a couple of very quick points:

• To indent a paragraph, begin it with a colon. To indent more, add more colons.
• @Ahunt: Are you able to comment on any of this? If you do have copies of cited sources, I doubt that page images will be permissible, but maybe the odd quote?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow How are you able to classify Canada Post as not being a reliable source and yet you are able to classify kitplanes as a reliable source? Canada Post has been Canadas' storyteller for decades, kitplanes is a 'for profit' magazine that just popped up a few years ago and will accept, with very little verification if any, the articles that are presented to it. Your own words tell us that you do not dig into the thinking behind whether sources are reliable (I hope that is a correct paraphrase because you are not speaking clearly in that instance).

Next, you have changed the clarification text to "The Canada Post Details magazine only says that more are flying in Canada". WOW what a mis-parapharse that statement is ...."

Since you refuse to clearly and precisely paraphrase from it, I MUST now present the full text of the Canada Post Details March 2019 No. 3 magazine with regard to the Lazair:

"The Ultraflight Lazair – better known as the Lazair –

was a family of twin-engine high-wing ultralight

monoplanes designed by Dale Kramer of Port

Colborne, Ontario. Kramer completed his Lazair

prototype in late 1978 and revealed it at the 1979

Sun ’n Fun fly-in and expo, where it won the award

for best home-built ultralight. With its true aircraft

configuration and 11-metre, glider-like wingspan,

the Lazair combined a light, efficient chainsaw

motor with modern aircraft materials. Although

production ended in 1985, today there are still more

Lazairs registered in Canada than any other basic

ultralight, and it is considered one of the best light

aircraft ever made.

In its early years, the Lazair won top honours in

every air show it was entered. In 1982, Kramer flew in

exhibition flights at the Paris Air Show. The same

year, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale

awarded a Diplôme d’honneur to Kramer’s company,

Ultraflight Incorporated, for its contributions to

the progress of aviation. In 1983, the Canadian

Aeronautics and Space Institute presented Kramer

with the Roméo Vachon Award for outstanding

contribution to the development of aeronautics in

Canada. In 1986, he received an Award of Merit from

the Ernest C. Manning Awards Foundation for

designing, producing and marketing “one of the

world’s finest ultra-light aircraft.”

I took the liberty of 'bolding' the section of text that I believe you have mis-paraphrased...

As far as your efforts to come up with a number of Lazair kits manufactured goes...

You will NOT be able to determine the relationship between A,B and .... Z numbers, with how many Lazair kits were manufactured, only I can verify that and you refuse to use me as a reliable source. How do you even know that we placed serial numbers on all kits that were shipped, that practice was not required and in fact was not a general practice in the unregulated industry...

You state "...also appears to be a B sequence with the highest known being B027. Not what we consider a reliable source but just mentioned for interest.". Anyone following this bizarre conversation will quickly see that Wikipedias' determination of what sources are reliable is very much under scrutiny here and that there is something wrong with that list. Please, where is the source reliability list and what rules are used to determine source reliability?

This has become so bizarre that I have to go away and calm down now and then decide if I want to come back here to participate in what appears to be a forgone waste of my time...

In summary, you have determined that I am not a reliable source, Canada Post is not a reliable source however, the 'for profit' Kitplanes magazine is a reliable source and also that there is no need to review the text of the Kitplane articles that were written by Adam Hunt, who appears to be an unaccredited authority on the Lazair, in order to determine the validity of the statement "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft.[2][clarification needed]" (there is no presence on the internet, which I can find, that any Adam Hunt has any history of even a potential authoritative Lazair connection, other than these ghostly articles)... How bizarre... bizarre ... bizzare DaleKramer (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has said Canada Post is not reliable only that it makes no mention of how many were built so it cant be used to refute the kitplanes article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

MilborneOne Yes I can see that there is a way to interpret from the above text that the reliability of Canada Post as a source was not questioned, although I interpret the above text otherwise...

Again, if Canada Post could have verified that incorrect statement, they would have. What they have said is a suitable alternate to use in the article. Strange as it now seems to me, I know that Canada Post did look at the Wikipedia Lazair article in their search for the truth... DaleKramer (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you cant say just because they didnt mention it it cant be true slight bit of illogic there. Bit of all Lazairs must be blue because Canada Post didnt mention a colour. So you cant refute the kitplanes article with something that Canada Post didnt say, things dont work like that. Bit suprised as the designer that you dont believe that your product was the most built Canadian aircraft, something that looks like you should be proud of. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that I said the Canada Post text directly countered the existing contentious claim that is in question. However I did expand that their text is a reliably researched alternate text regarding a subject that is very close to the subject of the contentious stated claim... I do believe that the Lazair was the most built Canadian aircraft, but that is a belief, not a demonstrated fact yet. Yes you might be surprised that I question that fact, unless you personally knew me... Over the years, I have grown to insist on truth, integrity and I have a deep desire to make sure that history is not being re-written by those that follow... I am spending too much time here, I want to start leading again... DaleKramer (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

MilborneOne is correct in interpreting my remark. It puzzles me that it can be interpreted any other way. Still, I certainly mis-recollected the exact import of the Canada Post piece - thank you DaleKramer for pointing it out - and have corrected my comment accordingly. But it doesn't change the status of the text or of the challenge. The reliability of any given published source is of course open to discussion, but for an established journal some documentary evidence of unreliability would normally be needed before rejecting it. It would be more accurate to say that you are a reliable source when you are published in a magazine such as free flight but not when you post directly here, while free flight, Kitplanes and Details are all regarded as reliable sources (unless and until proved otherwise). Apologies for reworking everybody's indents, but I was finding the discussion hard to follow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Steelpillow, thank-you for the indent re-work (I hesitated to do that). How does this 'indent' threading work when we end up having the first indent such that it is wider than the page is?

In my "BEWARE - The Lazair truth exists only in the edit history of this article" topic, I simply (without knowing any better) made all my replies (as topic starter) from the left hand margin and that seemed to be a 'sort of' solution for the continued indenting issue.

And thank-you for re-paraphrasing the Canada Post text, it is a slightly better paraphrase.

I still have a problem with your re-paraphrasing though and I find it hard to understand why you don't just quote the text directly...

In Canada, there is significant difference in the interpretation of the Canada Post text when you change it from 'basic ultralight' to simply 'ultralight' as you have done...

I can see that there will be no more changes made here until I receive and post the Kitplanes articles for your scrutiny... Lets wait... 2603:9000:D10A:A295:6432:E731:3AC3:388B (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What is happening to my signature here? Has Wikipedia decided that I am not Dale Kramer? ...2603:9000:D10A:A295:6432:E731:3AC3:388B (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact the Wikipedia 'level of reliability test' for posting text into articles seems to be simply that the text needs to be cited to a reference without verifying that the reference exists or in fact contains any valid data that supports the claimed article text, is beyond disturbing. I think this paragraph of text should be widely distributed so that more people will understand that Wikipedia is not the ultimate reference source as is very commonly believed. I do know that accredited researchers and people in the know already understand this, but in my opinion, the poor general public does not, which is all the better for Wikipedia. 2603:9000:D10A:A295:6432:E731:3AC3:388B (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And even before the Hunt articles are examined, a simple Wikipedia search that should allow the contentious text to be immediately removed from the Lazair article, shows that 1631 De Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beavers were built. 2603:9000:D10A:A295:6432:E731:3AC3:388B (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Another tip on indents: when they get excessive, you can use Template:Outdent to draw a little continuity line, as I have done here, if there is a need to reduce them. I have not seen anything flow off the page in this dicussion, though it sometimes happens (or appears to happen) for other reasons. If it still gets in the way, can you be more specific?

I have been wondering whether to include the Canada Post comment somewhere, but have yet to figure the best way ahead.

You forgot to log in just now, so Wikipedia is using your IP address to identify you.

Of course references have to exist. If an editor posts spurious references they will probably get themselves banned. But nobody says the source must be easy to find. Any editor who wishes to challenge such a reference has their work cut out, but usually there is someone somewhere who has access. Adam Hunt has long shown himself a responsible editor here so we should assume good faith on his part in posting those cites, unless and until we might ever discover otherwise. He does sail closer to the line in citing his own work, so he has wisely retired from this discussion until it blows over. It might be useful to quote the relevant paragraph here (you or I will hopefully find out in due course), but equally he would be unwise to quote himself, he is leaving it to us to make that judgement.

I take your point about the Beaver, however I have now watered down the claim to aircraft registered and many Beavers were exported, so the number ever registered in Canada will be significantly less. Since the same applies to the Lazair, for me all bets are off, but it is our usual practice for cited claims to only change the article again when we can gain some further clarification.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)