Talk:Paragliding/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


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)

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 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, , "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, , "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. 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) 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.." 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; , 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.

  • "a light frame covered with some thin material, to be flown in the wind at the end of a long string."
  • "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"
  • "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"
  • "A light framework covered with cloth, plastic, or paper, designed to be flown in the wind at the end of a long string"
  • "a toy consisting of a light frame with thin material stretched over it, flown in the wind at the end of a long string"
  • "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)

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)

Qwyrxian Here's a link to a book saying that paragliders are exceptionally portable: Manormadman (talk) 05:40, 21 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)

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: 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)


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: 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)

1. Held playsail without tether set. 2. Wingsuit. 3. High jumper shorts/shirt. 4. Cluster balloon with helium or hydrogen (LTA, negative weight) 5.Parachute 6. Simple thread that is very long (although this has been demonstrated and seen by some analysts as a paraglider). 7. Aerogel flying wing. Of course, all this is of no count, as what paraglider are you wanting to bring in to weigh? A paraglider may weigh tonnes or a miniature paraglider may be a one gram sans pilot while the pilot jumps off the cliff. Best not to make claims about all things in universe when making a claim about weighs less as regards aircraft; there are just a huge amount of parameters that would have to be stated to make a valid claim on the matter. Just state the all-up mass involved in a sport paraglider used by one person of x body weight; let that stand; avoid the mess of untenable comparisons. Inflated-blade rotary-wing gliders will come play. Endurance? Type of flight of competitor? Too much. Stay the course of representing exact objects that are cited. Joefaust (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A high jumper in shorts is an aircraft? It's no wonder we have to revert your changes. Ha! I often find myself flying past high jumpers (in shorts) at 12,000ft while on glide looking for my next thermal. Woof! 88xxxx (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Narrow POV of comparisons that are untenable would be matter for undo. Flying low and slow in a paraglider is a special realm of paragliding; your apparent personal choice to be at 12,000 ft does not mean that aircraft different from what you apparently favor are not with full merit in themselves. The response was about comparisons. Joefaust (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Silly me, there I was thinking you were answering the question. This is great fun, I have to say, I certainly don't get to meet these type of people in the real world. 88xxxx (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, this is silly. "Held playsail without tether set" is probably a collection of words that only you have ever used; no one else knows what it means. A high-jumper is not considered to be an aircraft by any sensible person, nor are his vest and shorts. Wingsuit: you may have a point there, but in their present state of development wingsuits can't be flown above launch, which probably disqualifies them from being considered aircraft. Balloons indeed have a negative weight when filled with hot air or helium, but before preparation for launch, they're much heavier than paragliders. Parachute: same as wingsuit -- they only go down. Toy paragliders: we're talking about aircraft that people can fly. And no one flies a long thread. I repeat: there's no aircraft lighter than a paraglider that a human being can use to fly above launch. Manormadman (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a new qualification that is different from what was faced in your first go; now you want "to fly above launch" and now you are requiring weight deflated. Game changes. In calm non-thermal the PG that 88:xxxx uses does not fly above launch. And in a report to the FAA in 1971 was a firm statement at a hang glider meet that I flew my clothes as an aircraft. There are people that have flown their clothes in updrafts above launch. Most every flight of my over 10,000 high jumps were considered by me as flying my system above launch; and the thousands of high jumpers are ever doing that same above launch action of flight. A cluster balloon system deflated can be with low weight; and in enough updraft it can be flown above launch. Easily in updraft sufficient a wingsuit can be flown above launch. Look at the commercial windtunnels used for skydive practicing; their suits and body motions fly them above launch. I have flown with just a thread above launch; there are photographs in reliable sources showing this. Compare the launch weight of 88:xxxx system off the ground with the all-up weight of my son's hang glider flight shown online in LIFE photo files and you will find that my son flew an all-up weight hang glider system lighter than 88:xxxx all-up weight PG system. Not silly matters; different interests and different perspectives and different ways of analyzing. Thus, avoid comparisons that are known not to be true; stick with describing and sourcing things about paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You really need to get yourself over to the wingsuit, hang glider and soaring underpants pages and get editing. Luckily this is the paragliding page and none of that stuff has anything to do with us. Honestly. Get your camera out Joe, get up a hill and post a video of your sustained, unassisted, higher than takeoff, human flight with these clothes of yours. Then post it somewhere, then perhaps we'll stop laughing and take it seriously that your trousers are indeed a "lighter than PG" aircraft. Even then, of course, it will have no bearing in this page. Because a pair of boxer shorts and a t-shirt is not a paraglider. Which will mean we are still entitled to say "One of the key features of a paraglider is its portability". So, until we see the video, expect laughter... and statements from PG pilots that we fly a very light, portable aircraft. 88xxxx (talk) 19:17, 22 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)
And who will be arbiter of "who know the subject best" ? WP works differently, it seems. Anyone in the world that sees something noteworthy with RS on a detail of the article may edit an open article; they do not need to be the "best" at the whole topic. As yet there is not an answer to what the topic IS; will it be strictly sport and recreation paragliding to someone's view or will the article be more? Your note seems to call that a separate article for Paraglider (flying machine) would serve well. Joefaust (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite right Joe, anyone can edit. That's why most of your pages have been deleted, most of your changes have been reverted, the admins are discussing banning you and why these pages are in such a mess. Thanks for your help. 88xxxx (talk) 20:53, 21 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)
  • Well, I beg to differ, but that's why I'm in academia. Below I've filed an edit request--this is the appropriate way to move forward if consensus is not easily found. I can go in and do this myself (I have some experience as a Wikipedia editor, and this particular edit would never be considered problematic), but I thought I'd put this on the talk page as an example, and because I don't really enjoy making edits as an admin in a protected article. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that the WP approach to administration? Bashing fellow editors by claiming some sort of superiority in your chosen profession? Ok. I work for an for an International Space Agency and I happen to know Manormadman works for a well respected International News Organisation. Do these professions hold value here and how does that affect our ability to build consensus for changes to the paragliding page? 88xxxx (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The text in that book about heritage tourism and paragliding is definitely about paragliding, it is about the aspect of paragliding that reaches into society in some special ways; such could easily be a handsome section in the article Paragliding. Similarly, the economic impact on society that comes from the loss of over 850 paragliders since 2002 is about paragliding; loss of leaders, inventors, workers, family heads, etc. Joefaust (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey, I have a feeling that too many editors here are too hung up on the details of the sport itself. Understandably those details are important, but there are other audiences as well, and other important aspects. This book taught me more about the history of paragliding than the entire Wikipedia article. The results of this search should make you all realize that there are other issues that are important here. That it's dangerous, sure, but really, who cares. Carpentry is dangerous too. That it takes certain motions to land the thing or make it go up if there's not a mountain around, that's great. But an encyclopedic description entails a lot more than that, and if anyone thinks they're going to learn how to paraglide from reading the Wikipedia article they're morons and probably won't live very long... Drmies (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, I think that introducing material about that Portuguese town would be absurd. The article might usefully have a BRIEF mention of the economic importance of paragliding to some areas, I suppose. Incidentally, the book that you cite is a source for the proposition that paragliders are light, cheap and relatively easy to learn to fly compared to other aircraft. It also says that flying a paraglider is safer than sky-diving or flying a hang glider -- a very controversial statement! (It cites no evidence.) It also makes other contentious statements, such as that all Europeans do a variety of outdoor activities. And it's very out of date. Ailes de K, for example, has not made paragliders for at least ten years (which is a third of the history of paragliding). Manormadman (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Maybe you missed that the book was published in 1995 which, by the by, doesn't alter the fact that it makes reliable statements about the impact of paragliding on tourism. Of course, everyone who's ever visited the Verdon Gorge would know this, and here we have a book that states its impact was immediate and important. You are free to argue, if you will, that a book published by John Wiley & Sons should not be deemed reliable, and see how that plays out on the Reliable sources noticeboard. And what is this obsession with the comparison with hang-gliding? (I didn't see that it says it's safer than hang-gliding.) Like real books do, it has a reference section; it's all the way in the back. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with comparing paragliding with hang gliding; I'd be happy if the article didn't mention hang gliding at all! Except in a "see also" section, perhaps. I'm just pointing out that the book itself makes contentious statements and gives no evidence for them (the reference section quotes a study of skydiving and a study of hang gliding, and gives no source for the assertion that I mentioned). (On the other hand, I'd point out that the article on Fixed-wing aircraft defines its subject by contrasting it with rotary-wing aircraft and ornithopters.) The function of an encyclopaedic article on paragliding should surely be to answer these questions: What is a paraglider? What's it made of? How big is it? How does it work? How fast does it go? How high? How far? What controls does it have? When was it invented? The question: What impact does it have on tourism? must surely be subisidiary to those Manormadman (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

However, the article would be short if the DUE about paragliding being a hang gliding activity by RS. Your comments support the theme again: Paraglider (flying machine) is needed, especially since the paragliders used in sport and recreation paragliding (if consensus settles to that as the article) does not define "paraglider" for the fullness of the flying machine. A main article on the machine could be linked. The many aspects of "paragliding" in an encyclopedic manner would be the article, however the article finally settles. Will piloting radio-controlled paragliders be in the article? Will the flying machine of the unmanned paragliders in model aircraft be covered? The control tactics of the unmanned paragliding, etc.? Joefaust (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Drmies, perhaps you could just let us know when you've completed the paragliding article and have unlocked it. Regards. 88xxxx (talk) 08:06, 21 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 Nopara (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe, you say: "Rick has decades of experience in paragliding cultures. He has flown paraglider hang gliders for decades." This is wrong, isn't it? He's never flown a paraglider, and it's 20 years since he flew a hang glider.Manormadman (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Manormadman, statements are correct, but I see that you and I are not using the same glossary; Rick involved in the single short-tether gliding kite paraglider (all paragliders manned are a proper subset of hang glider). His flight experience on multi-long-tethered hang gliders where pilot is not in proximity of wing for manipulation is not known to me; he would have the facts on that. His depth of involvement with the paraglider culture is apparently deep. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me get this straight... You say "single short-tether gliding kite paraglider" = 'Hangglider' and "multi-long-tethered hang gliders" = 'paraglider'? Speechless once again!!!! 88xxxx (talk) 15:31, 24 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 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, 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)