Wikipedia

Talk:Traian Vuia/Archive 1

< Talk:Traian Vuia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Lsorin in topic Documentation section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reverted Unscourced edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

see statement above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


the source you're citing is NOT A PRIMARY SOURCE, but an article in a 1959 newspaper, without any photo demonstration. It is a list, as we're writing here, controversial. All the pictures of Wrights take off I've seen are on descendant slopes or on catapulte; moreover, not carying the whole apparatus (gears left behind, on the ground). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.83.181 (talk • contribs) 20:02, September 22, 2014

Controversial wording

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments4 people in discussion

The following text in this article is quite controversial:

"the first self-propelling, self-taking off manned heavier-than-air aircraft"

Historians do not generally agree with such a statement about Vuia's efforts.

Controversial text in Wikipedia can be challenged and removed by anyone if the text is not supported by a reliable, verifiable source.

I am challenging this text.

It is not supported by any reliable, verifiable source and can therefore be removed.

That is how Wikipedia works.

I believe the previous text was fair and accurate.

DonFB (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just some very recent news trying to confirm the machines for moving the human through the air ( personally I will call it "sustained human flight") was at least invented by Leonardo Va Vinci many centuries ago, before Traian Vuia or Wright brothers constructed such machines ( So this video might prove the Vuia and the Wright brothers were just skillful constructors not the inventors of the machine for moving human through the air ). See the video for yourself:
[http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp
http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp]
So to PLEASE think twice when starting to edit this kind of pages and stop this bloody mess started by RomanianTruths in the Traian Vuia and Henri Coanda pages as well!!!! THANK YOU in advance Wikipedia Community! Let's goo back to the basics and copy without questions the information from trusted sources like Encyclopedia Britannica for instance! Lsorin (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


I liked the EAA page about the human-powered ornithopter. Fun and interesting.

Now, let's talk about this Vuia article. What does Encyclopedia Britannica say about Vuia? Does it say he built "the first self-propelling, self-taking off manned heavier-than-air aircraft"? (Or similar words like that) You said we should use "trusted sources" and I agree. Can you name a trusted source which supports the text I am challenging? I think that text is not accurate, and is actually very misleading. So I cannot agree to keeping that text the way it is.

I have thought many times, not just twice, about keeping this article accurate. I don't know what you mean by "bloody mess," but I want you to know I disagree strongly with the text I am challenging. I am sure many, many Wikipedia readers will disagree with that text.

Now our job is to discuss how to change that text to something we can agree on. I said the previous text was fair and accurate. I am willing to discuss other ways of writing it, but I will not agree to keeping it the way it is now. So perhaps you can offer a suggestion on how you are willing to change it. DonFB (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My own personal opinion is that this discussion are very difficult right now and I agree that both sides are right from certain points of view. That's is why I proposed to return all the way to this version before the xenophobic attacks started, protect the articles and start a decent discussion to clarify what is the right way to write it down. I really hate this changing of the articles every single 1/2 a day by who ever reads from his own opinion. If somebody has something to say he/she must participate to the discussions in a civilized way. Please check my talk for details about the xenophobic attack in the Coanda 1910 articles as well. Thanks for understanding my point as well!--Lsorin (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not help to call editorial changes "xenophobic." Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and if they disagree with you, that does not automatically make them "xenophobic," so let's stop using that language.

Also, because anyone can edit here, an article may indeed be changed frequently. That is how Wikipedia works. Most articles are not protected and should not be. In my opinion, this article does not need to be protected. It should be open for editing by anyone.

The version you want to "return" to is the same as the version right now, which I think is very inaccurate and misleading. So I don't agree with that version or today's version.

Because your suggestion does not offer any change, I will suggest a change, and I hope you will agree with it. Here is wording I can support:

"Traian Vuia (Romanian pronunciation: [traˈjan ˈvuja]; August 17, 1872 - September 3, 1950) was a Romanian inventor who designed and built one of the first engine-propelled heavier-than-air aircraft in Europe and made very short flights in 1906."

Will you agree to this change? DonFB (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Traian Vuia (Romanian pronunciation: [traˈjan ˈvuja]; August 17, 1872 - September 3, 1950) was a Romanian inventor which demonstrated for the first time the possibility of full autonomous flying of a heavier-than-air aircraft with short demonstrative flights in 1906."--Lsorin (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a little better than now, but I do not agree with saying "for the first time." I do not believe there are reliable sources which support saying that Vuia made the "first" demonstration of "autonomous" flight or built the "first" flying machine capable of such flight. I understand that some people believe he did, but I am not aware of any "trusted" sources that Wikipedia can use which support and agree with that idea and are able to overrule my challenge. Therefore, my suggestions avoid such wording.

Here's a new suggestion:

"......was a Romanian inventor who in 1906 made a few of the earliest confirmed brief manned flights in Europe with a heavier than air powered flying machine, which he designed and built."

I believe that reliable sources which comply with Wikipedia guidelines are able to support and agree with that text.

I will await your comment. DonFB (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps there is something else to consider here as well. If reliable sources describe Jatho, Pearse, Phillips, Kress, or others as flying aircraft which from their descriptions, are "self-propelling self-taking-off heavier than air aircraft" farther, higher and earlier than Vuia, what are we to make of that? At some point the numerous earlier accepted flights must make it unacceptable to describe Vuia this way. Even if some book which would otherwise be accepted as a reliable source shows up Which makes this claim for Vuia. I don't think the pages for these other folks make any actual claim to being first(except the Ader page, and he probably deserves it from what I've read). Incidentally, if you're wondering about the odd wording of the Vuia claim, it seems that it 's qualifications were specifically crafted to exclude the Wrights(apparently they thought the Wrights only took off using a catapult). Some more elaborate claims which also say "without rails, skids etc" are either crafted in recognition of the fact that the Wrights didn't always use a catapult, or are meant to exclude Maxim(whose plane did break free of it's retraining rails but isn't usually described as flying, perhaps because he didn't describe the accident that way himself). I see that LSorin has altered this page again. I'll revert it pending further discussion. I hope this doesn't qualify as another xenophobic attack on my part, and I hope I haven't manipulated you into agreeing with me(another charge I've been seeing a lot lately in LSorin's posts).Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Adding to your suggestion DonFB:
"......was a Romanian inventor who in 1906 made the earliest confirmed brief manned flights to take-off autonomously with a heavier than air powered flying machine, which he designed and built."
I propose to add a chapter all together to describe the plane itself. There are two full scale replicas as well. One which was presented and the last World Air Games were we can add a chapter regarding the things contested.
Another way: "March 18, 1906 Vuia, in his "Vuia No. 1", was the first person to take off from level ground by engine power alone in an untethered machine" [1]. Hopefully you can trust it a as source[2]. I found the link from [3]. Is this a trusted source? --Lsorin (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


(I am re-editing this post to clarify my meaning.)

When I wrote "a few of the earliest" I did not mean that none preceded him. I cannot agree to saying "earliest." As you know, other aviators made confirmed flights before Vuia. My meaning is that his short flights were in a group "of the earliest" flights, including flights by other people before him. But your latest suggestion states explicitly that he was "the earliest," which I cannot agree with. He was not unconditionally the earliest, as you can learn in any reputable book about early aviation history.

Regarding the online Vuia archive from the Romanian Academy Library: Its biographical information seems trustworthy, but its statement that you quoted is, in my opinion, clearly not true. Regardless of my personal opinion, the statement is certainly controversial, because other sources, like reputable historians such as Gibbs-Smith, and American national organizations like the Smithsonian, would not agree with the statement. So even if that statement is included in this article with a proper footnote, other editors, like myself, would add statements to this article from other sources which say that other aviators flew before Vuia.

I actually don't think it's a good idea to add various argumentative statements to this article about other aviation pioneers. All that extra text will take away attention from Vuia himself, which is what this article is supposed to be about. I have seen that kind of arguing hurt other articles, including Wright brothers, Santos Dumont, Whitehead and Pearse. There are other articles in Wikipedia like First flying machine and Early flight which show the claims and accomplishments of pioneer aeronauts. I think it's a bad idea to try to stuff those kinds of claims and arguments about various aviation pioneers into each article about an aviation pioneer. It only hurts the articles.

I suppose our discussion is a little less relevant now, because User:Romaniantruths has changed the text back to its former status, a change I support, especially since I am the editor who wrote that particular text many months ago. However, if you want to suggest a change, I am willing to continue the discussion. Remember, however, that as an editor here, I do not believe there are reliable sources that can support an introduction to this article which says, unconditionally and without controversy, that Vuia made the "earliest" or "first" confirmed flight. Any text which says that will certainly be challenged. DonFB (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all you just said personally that you thrust the Romanian Academy Library, then were are a statements from Gibbs-Smith and American Smithsonian making the claims controversial? And what I read about Wikipedia is then is neutral and a free foundation ( it does not belong to Smithsonian, nor Gibbs-Smith, nor Romanian Academy ) That is way I propose a neutral statement like this one and then add a chapter about the Documents ( where we can add the references to Gibbs-Smith and Smithsonian in that chapter ). If you agree with this read my Talk for an example on Coanda-1910. Another idea is create a new article about the airplane Vuia-1 if you consider it important. If not I would even remove any references about this plane all together from Traian Vuia article. Ball in your field. --Lsorin (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW this was the version before Romaniantruths came in. --Lsorin (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which statement you mean when you say, "I propose a neutral statement like this one." I do not consider the text to be neutral in the version you gave a link to. I did not say I trust the Romanian Academy Library. I said its biographical information about Vuia (his life) seems trustworthy. The Library's statement about Vuia's flight is controversial and is not a "fact" that most reliable sources agree on. I don't think it is necessary to create a separate Vuia-1 article. I'm sure such information can be included in this article. DonFB (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the link for the proposal of a neutral statement. http://aerosteles.net/fiche.php?code=issylesmx-coanda&type=texte&valeur=Issy-les-Moulineaux&lang=fr. --Lsorin (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your English translation, s'il vous plaît? DonFB (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"The first airplane to take-off on the ground of Issy-les-Molineaux, was that of Traian Vuia, Romanian pioneer of the world's aviation." --Lsorin (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
As you can notice "the first" is very clearly stated. That is the way I would really accept any entry with such statement containing "first", like I proposed above. Then we can add a full chapter with the doubts. --Lsorin (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This link as well is using the word "first".--Lsorin (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a fair translation, although the phrase "pioneer of the world's aviation" is a little exaggerated. However, I see a possibility of misinterpreting the sentence. The English translation (and the original French, I believe) do not mean "the first airplane in the world" or the "first takeoff in the world". If that were the meaning, it would say: "Le premier avion a décollé sur le terrain à Issy". But it says "premier avion qui ait decolle," which means the first airplane which has taken off at that location. In both languages, the meaning is: "first airplane to take off at Issy", not: "it was the first airplane and it took off at Issy". A native speaker of French may wish to comment.

I see a similar apparent misinterpretation of the Gibbs-Smith text. He means "first modern configuration" of a man-carrying airplane, not "first man carrying airplane" in the world. Other native speakers of English may wish to comment. DonFB (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I added the statement to note that although it was not successful in flight, there was something to be said for its design. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett, your own words: "there was something to be said for its design" ( to be translated ) is equal too: Flight magazine entry "first modern configuration", Gibbs-Smith entry "Vuia mono­plane - which ranks as the first full-size conventio­nally shaped monoplane in history". --Lsorin (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable to include the Gibbs-Smith comment in the article, either indirectly paraphrased or directly quoted. He is describing what the craft looked like, but not stating it was the first to make an unassisted takeoff. Personally, I would quibble with Gibbs-Smith; the Henson Aerial Steam Carriage of the 1840s looked very "modern". DonFB (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are not getting anywhere. You are just ignoring my comments. So would you agree with this proposal: let's try to build some consensus step by step. ? I can propose a step 1 if you agree.--Lsorin (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "get somewhere". You are. Please proceed with your proposal. DonFB (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus build-up

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Step 1. Vuia-1 thing is not important in the history of aviation as it did not bring anything new to the existing concepts. Do you agree? --Lsorin (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to me, or you, or any Wikipedia editor, to decide if the Vuia machine introduced new concepts. This article, like every Wikipedia article, must be built upon information about its subject that is contained in reliable, verifiable sources. DonFB (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So I understand that you disagree with my step 1? Please propose another step 1 or I consider step 1 as not agreed.--Lsorin (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article introduction as now written. The rest of the article could use some more well-sourced information. If there is something specific you want to change in the article, it's up to you to suggest it, and to show that such change, if it is likely to be controversial among Wikipedia editors, is supported by reliable, verifiable sources. If a change you want to make in the article is unlikely to be controversial, you can be "bold" and make it anytime.DonFB (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

first monoplane?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do Clement Ader and Gustav Whitehead and Wilhalm Kress and Richard pearse know about that?Romaniantruths (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. That's why I modified the intro to say "described as," and put "the first monoplane" in quotes (followed by Britannica footnote) instead of leaving the article to say what it was supposed to be without quotes, as if expressing an immutable truth. Not sufficient? DonFB (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

first well documented?

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

what documentation do you actually have? How is it better that Whitehead's for instance? (newspaper stories at the time, and signed legal affidavits by numerous witnesses.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Send us the link. --Lsorin (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair question. I'd say a Britannica ref and a Flight magazine ref for Vuia are pretty good. In more general terms, Vuia's flights are well-accepted. I don't think there is any great skepticism or doubt among historians about Vuia's hops. In contrast, regarding Whitehead, there is all kinds of doubt, and you won't find sources like Britannica and Flight mag stating straightforwardly that he succeeded. There was just one newspaper account about GW flying, and nobody ever claimed authorship of that article (other newspaper reports were only reprints/rewrites of the original--no other papers were at the event). As for the affidavits--maybe. But those are not mainstream "reliable" sources. I don't claim GW did not hop or maybe even fly. I would just say that whatever he did, it is not accepted among historians that he flew, but it is accepted about Vuia. So I think "well-documented" seems to be a fair way of expressing it. DonFB (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaninatruths, add your Whitehead reference to the new Documentation section introduced in the article, whenever you find it. --Lsorin (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So wait a minute. are we now deciding what qualifies as well-documented and what doesn't? Isn't that a classic example of "original research'? Who says the documentation on these others (like Jatho, or Pearse, etc) doesn't qualify as 'well-documented'. This is the very reason why these other articles don't generally make claims about who was first to fly. I realize it's very important to Slorin to have some sort of first attatched to the name of his countryman, but is this the way these articles generally been written? Won't it just eventually result in numerous Wikipedia pages listing different people as "first to fly"?Romaniantruths (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, it doesn't say he was "first to fly." I would not agree to that. It's carefully qualified as: "unassisted," "level surface," "wheeled undercarriage". It's far better documented than Pearse, which depends on witness reports given many years later that are not certain about the date (or even the year) of the events, which completely lack any contemporaneous reporting. For Vuia, several specific dates are reported, with flight distances. Regarding Jatho: there's a distinction in the type of aircraft. In making the recent change to the text of this article, the term "monoplane" got dropped. If we add that back to the description as another qualifier, it makes the combination of the craft and its generally accepted achievement "first". DonFB (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It still seems to me that the term well documented is being arbetrarily applied here. Santos Dumont was photographed in mid-air, and performed in font of FIA officials. Is this better documentation than Vuia? Is he the first well documented flight then? If not then a line is being drawn where vuia's evidence is well documented although it isn't as well documenyed as Santos Dumont. In Pearse's case we have witnesses, and physical evidence of no small import. Who decides that this is poorly documented? In Whitehead's case we have articles pre-dating Vuia's flight claims and numerous witnesses. This documentation seems the equal of Vuia's. Whitehead's claims are disputed largely because some argue he would supplant the Wright's priority, but no one is too concerned about Vuia because Early flight claims almost all pre-date him by a considerable margin. Also the nature of Vuia's claims is so limited that many historians would dismiss it's characterization as flight(you are no doubt aware of the distinction made by some, including Jatho in refering to his own performances which spanned up to 3 times the length of Vuia's longest claimed flight, between flight and a mere 'hop'.)Romaniantruths (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

--Lsorin (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Santos Dumont was better documented, but after Vuia. The intent of the wording now is that Vuia was better documented than what came before him---but Vuia must be qualified as using a "monoplane" (we can add that back in) and "wheeled undercarriage". When qualified that way, he is better documented. The sources for Vuia don't express any doubt, speculation or questions about his takeoffs. With Pearse and Whitehead, they do. So I strongly disagree that their "documentation seems the equal of Vuia's". If you know of reliable sources about Vuia in which "many historians would dismiss it's characterization as flight", please state them here. That would be relevant and should be included. Even though you and I agree on basic facts, I'm trying to reach a compromise on the wording with Lsorin and others on that side. Would you like to offer your own compromise wording? DonFB (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about using the wording describing the flight from Flight magazine's 1916 reprint of 'Auto'(Flight's precursor and sister magazine) from October 1906?(that is currently footnote #4, and was supplied by Lsorin) It's the most detailed contemporary account of Vuia's achievement I've personally seen. Would that compromise be okay with you Lsorin? Romaniantruths (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion actually was to write an introduction in your own words. A quick note: It was not my intention to become a "mediator" or "peacemaker" in this debate, although that sort of seems to be happening. I've already done edits on this article going back many months. I've recently been in the strange position where I could agree with the wording supported by each side. I guess the point I want to make is that nobody is going to "win" this debate. There will have to be some compromise.
So let me ask what part, if any, of the current intoductory wording do you not agree with? How would you change it--in your own words?
Another point. Plenty of articles on all kinds of subjects contain competing opinions, as expressed by reliable sources, footnoted. This article can do the same. Instead of trying to make this article--or its introduction--express a single triumphant point of view, the article can express that historians/reliable sources hold more than one opinion, or have given more than one description, of Mr. Vuia's accomplishments. But I don't mean this article should go on endlessly about what all the other pioneers did. I just mean we should find good sources to support what each side wants to say. And we should say it very briefly. I see no reason why the article cannot begin something like:
Following the introduction, the article could give readers the link(s) to the First Flying Machine and/or Early Flight articles.
The article could then explain briefly that Vuia's efforts were important because he demonstrated publicly to the European aviation community that it was possible to make a direct takeoff on wheels without an incline or catapult. This part of the article would not say he was "first." That issue would already be covered in the very brief introduction.
Get my point? It can give both points of view, very briefly, with footnotes. The article need not, and should not, try to block out one of the points of view. I believe that both points of view can be fairly supported with good footnotes. Even the Wright brothers article introduction says they were not the first to fly experimental airplanes.
I think we need to work on specific wording instead of battling endlessly about which sources are more qualified or more knowledgeable. I think probably all of the sources that have been talked about can be used. They can be used to support the two basic points of view which the article can express in the introduction, as in my suggestion above. Instead of trying disqualify some widely-accepted sources because they don't agree with an editor's opinion, the sources should be used to support the text in the article which represents that point of view. After the brief introduction and explanation why Vuia's work was important, the article should probably try to avoid repeating the arguments and just do an improved job of telling more about Vuia's work and life.
So your turn. Write a compromise introduction. In your own words. DonFB (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the topic of surrounding the "first", "second", "last" terms this are very tricky problems tackled by several aviation historians especially during the early flights, as the many definition were just getting invented and the "official" recongnition was again defined by the meanning ot official at the time compared to now adays ( FAI is founded in 1905 only). For instance regarding the Wright borther's flighs in the 1903, by definition of flight the Human cannonball can be considered as flying. The Wright catapult it was a similar ingenious system like in a human cannonball gun to accelerate a human to the flying speed. Of course the definition of a flying machine evolved over the time and according to the accounts, Vuia-1 was definetly a step in demonstating that the flying machine can be autonomus. Another question: how can Wright brother's flights from 1903 can be recognized officially as the FAI was founded 2 year later? Does it mean that Wright brothers flights from 1903 cannot be considered as "first" because they were not "officialy" recognized? All this controversies have a lot of relevance and that is why I consider, as we disccused with DonFB that they have to be listed somehow. But to keep the articles readable and pin-point the relevant aspect of that particula invention presented all this controversies have to be listed separately, like for instance the proposed sandbox and then add the link to that page in all relevant articles, as for instance Traian Vuia.
--91.154.44.31 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
DonFB: I'll put something together. I appreciate your position, and can understand that you don't want this to turn into another Coanda 1910 type situation, so I'll put some thought into what can be agreed on and get back to you soon.
Lsorin:I never said the Wrights were FAI(?) recognized. I did point out that they didn't use a catapult in 1903 or 1904. Why do you keep bringing up something they didn't use at the time? Since you want part of the information in a separate article, what do you personally think about this proposition: We put your claim that Vuia was the first to demonstrate that the flying machine can be autonomous, and your claim that the Wrights used a catapult in 1903(a year before they invented it) in your proposed controversy article because these are things that are highly disputed. The discussion here is not about wether vuia was the "first autonomous flight", but about wether his monoplane, which flew(if it really did fly before Santos Dumont) after widely accepted autonomous flights by the Wrights and Jatho, was better documented in it's flight than Ader and Pearse and Whitehead.

And this is a vital question: Are you willing to agree that this article will not claim that Vuia performed the first autonomous flight?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I can see even more clearly why we talk different languages RomanianTruths, anything related to flying, even a rock falling from the sky is recognized as a first or record by one entity FAI. If you didn't know about it please document yourself before you start going out in public with stuff you have no clue about. At the times of Wright brothers, Vuia and Santos Dumont this organization was just forming. So they have been recognized as "first" later when the FAI really started to become the official authority.

Regarding the timing before or after Santos Dumont I really think you did not document yourself enough again. Do you know who is Charlles Dollfus and the books he wrote, and that he was the main person in charge with the one of the full scale functional replica's of Vuia-1 which is now in the Air Museum in Paris? Did you know BTW that in Italy at the WAG 2009 there was a replica of Vuia-1 flying? Charles Dollfus explains in his book that Santos Dumont himself recognized the work of Vuia and that he followed closely Vuia's tryouts together with Voisin. See the extract[http://www.biblacad.ro/Vuiaeng.htm at: ( a copy paste for you)

Charles Dollfus, then the curator of the Air Museum in Paris, who took the responsibility of a complete restoration of Vuia's model 1 flying machine, carried out by Mr. Picart, gave also some appreciations on that occasion, in Romania "The machine was the first of all set on tire Wheels". "Santos Dumont made up his mind to try the simple flight on wheels that soon led him to victory and immortalized him after he heard and saw Vuia's flights". He had used the most complicated launching means till then. "Although Vida's work was limited... it was, nevertheless, at that time, due to the quality of a so rational construction, as well as to the modest but undeniable flights he publicly performed, to his experimenter courage, his enthusiasm for aviation, that of an important forerunner".

So coming back to your proposal. I disgree: because being the first autonomous plane to take-off is what it makes Vuia-1 an important plane, not the controversies around it. The same stands for the Wright brothers machine. The importance of their flights are not contested ( they were the first ). The catapult usage is the controversy which belongs to the proposed page with controversies. With the Coanda-1910 you have similar problems but again I will not mix them up again because that give a xenophobic tent to your requests, as we discussed before. --Lsorin (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


It looks my suggestions are not being understood or are just being disregarded, as apparently shown by these two recent comments:
Romaniantruths wrote:
"Are you willing to agree that this article will not claim that Vuia performed the first autonomous flight?"
Lsorin wrote:
"I disgree: because being the first autonomous plane to take-off is what it makes Vuia-1 an important plane"
My whole point in my most recent comment is that the article can give *both* of those opinions, with good footnotes for each. Re-read my suggested Introduction above. You guys are each still trying to "win" the debate with an unbending unconditional claim that Vuia "was first" and that Vuia "was not first", and you each apparently want to exclude the other point of view, even if the other point of view can be supported with good footnotes.
As I indicated before, I don't think either one of you, or probably anybody else, can "win" this debate, and, frankly, should stop trying and instead should focus on how to write the article so it shows *both* points of view, with good footnotes for each. The sources, I believe, can support both points of view. And it can be done, I believe, in two sentences, similar to what I suggested (in quotes) in my post above.
Some sources say he was "first". Other sources say somebody else was "first". What's wrong with writing the article that way? That's what Wikipedia editors should be doing, not trying to crush another point of view which has reasonable sources to support it. You should be guided by the sources, not your personal opinions. If reliable verifiable sources support more than one point of view, that's what the article should say. I don't think this article, or its editors, can "decide" which of those sources are "right" and which are "wrong". Yeah, I have an opinion also. But it looks to me like some sources support an opinion that disagrees with me. So, take a break from arguing who is right and who is wrong, and try writing an introduction which reflects both opinions. DonFB (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Gee, now I'm confused about your original proposal, DonFB. I thought you were proposing that it was the first well documented monoplane flight. Are you now saying you don't think Jatho's numerous biplane flights happened either? And Are you also skeptical that the Wrights flew without their catapult? And that Maxim's plane achieved liftoff even though it had to break through it's restraining rails to do so?
The truth is Vuia's flight has a few documentation problems of it's own. Even the footnotes supplied by Slorin include one that says he didn't fly until October 8 (after Santos Dumont had flown twice), and one reporting on his tests in October 1906 saying he hasn't acheived free flight. These are Flight in 1909, and Flight 1916 quoting Auto of 1906 respectively. These are the only contemporary reports I've seen as yet, and they make me wonder if the date of his flight really predates Santos Dumont, and even if his date of flight is any better established than Pearse's. At least there aren't any contemporary reports saying they saw Pearce fail to fly when he claimed he did.
The later Romanian sources look a little funny too. One says his flight of March 18, 1906 was reported in the March 3,1907 New York Herald(not exactly a scoop), But the other claims 1906 as the date for this coverage. They also make some mind boggling claims like Vuia having built the third aircraft engine in history after the Wrights and Manly. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think either one of two approaches can work in the article Intro.
One approach: Some say Vuia was "first self-propelled". Some say others were "first self propelled." The article can say both those things and, I believe, back them up with good references.
The other approach: The article introduction can dispense completely with dueling "firsts," and just say: His was "first monoplane with wheels, powered, manned, unassisted well-documented takeoff". And not say somebody else did that first, because that way of putting it is so highly restricted/qualified that it eliminates everyone else.
To review: a less-restricted phrasing would give "both sides" (but only Vuia's name) in the intro. A highly restricted phrasing would only mention the Vuia "side" in the intro.
I'm not gonna get sucked into arguing about Jatho and all the rest of 'em, because we (editors here) can never "settle" the issue. Our challenge, instead, is to write an intro/article that fairly expresses what the sources say. What the sources say. Not our judgement/conclusion/opinion/deduction about the "truth" of what the sources say. (Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not Truth.)
I will make one comment about specifics. The source you gave for Vuia's October attempt, does not claim--if I read it correctly--that Vuia never took off before October. It just talks about what he did on that particular occasion in October.
Still waiting to see your effort at writing a compromise introduction. DonFB (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but I'm afraid I must be confused again. You seem to be saying that we can dispense with dueling 'firsts' by saying he was the 'First' monoplane with wheels to make a 'powered, manned, unassisted well-documented takeoff. The well-documented part is a value judgement on the documentation of Vuia's claimed first flight as opposed to the claimed flights of Ader, Pearse, and others. Who is making this judgement? You say we can never 'settle' this issue, but you seem to want to 'settle' it by deciding whose documentation is or isn't sufficient, and without any discussion here as to what this documentation is. Isn't this your 'judgement/conclusion/opinion/deduction' about what the sources say?
I could see saying in the lead that Vuia flew a powered monoplane in 1906, but saying it was first is saying the other earlier claimants weren't first, therefore they didn't fly. How about "possibly the first powered monoplane to fly" as a compromise? The wheeled undercairrage and unassisted take-off would not be germane in this context since no-one claims to have flown an un-wheeled monoplane first, or to have flown a monoplane with a catapult first. Romaniantruths (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I can see why "well-documented" can be thought of as a value judgement. I was hoping the phrase could be accepted. The intention of the phrase is not to suggest that others did not fly, but only to say that Vuia's efforts were....better documented, leaving open the possibility that others did fly earlier. By "well-documented," I mean there were public reports about Vuia's takeoffs at the actual time he did it (as shown in the secondary sources), and there is also general acceptance of his takeoffs by the main secondary sources, like Gibbs-Smith and other aviation historians. The issue is not if he made takeoffs, but how to describe them. In contrast, for the earlier pioneers (except the Wrights), there are either questions whether they flew at all, or there is less or no "documentation" at the time they did their work. (Pearse: nothing contemporaneous; Ader: no public reports; Whitehead: very controversial.)
I appreciate your suggestion of "possibly the first powered monoplane to fly." But it does seem like that exact phrase could also apply to the earlier pioneers. But those earlier efforts are....here's that phrase again: not as well-documented, in the sense that I described just above.
I don't want to fight dogmatically for "well-documented." It just seems like a good way to distinguish Vuia as "first monoplane" from the earlier pioneers. Can you think of some other way to do this? DonFB (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths you did not read the agreement we've had below in the [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traian_Vuia#Documentation_section Documentation section] with DonFB: "I just don't see the value of cluttering this article with all the arguments for Whitehead or Ader or Pearse or Jatho of the Wright brothers or anybody else. That's not what this article is for. This article should remain focused on Vuia, not all the arguments about him and the other pioneers. This article still needs a lot of improvement in its description of Vuia's life and accomplishments. That's what editors here should be doing, not arguing endlessly about the various aviation pioneers." I completely agree with this statement. That's why the sandbox was created. Let's move all this discussion there. I added a link to that in the See also section. Same why the Apollo 11 hoax was handled in the past. --Lsorin (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I did or didn't read Lsorin. And as I've said before, if you want your controversial claims that Vuia was the first autonomous flight because you say Jatho didn't fly, Pearse didn't fly, Ader didn't fly, Kress didn't fly, the Wright's didn't fly without a catapult, and Vuia actually did fly Before Santos Dumont in spite of contemporary references to the contrary to be put in there , then go right ahead. I think we can all agree that if you want to put your claims in there, you should be allowed to put your claims in there.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

you have sited Gibbs -Smith in this article Lsorin. Do you think he's a reliable source, or do you want to remove the reference?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith stuff from Wikipedia neutral point of view is just another reference. If is reliable or not as the main source is always questionable like any other reference. The newer ( historically) the reference are, the more correct they are. --Lsorin (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Newness does not necessarily make for greater accuracy. A very complete and exhaustive work stands on its own regardless of the passage of time. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

according to the romanian academy library?

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

A library that lists a Gibbs-Smith book called:Aviation Unhistorical Survey From It's Origins To The End Of WWII?Romaniantruths (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean, and I don't want to slog through that website again. Do you have a URL? DonFB (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Gibb-Smith book

--Lsorin (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

" was the first flight with a machine heavier than the air and was entirely powered only by its on board engine during all its evolution" - The Romanian Air Force [ http://www.roaf.ro/ro/Airshows/Otopeni%20Airshow%202010/history/vuia.htm link]. --Lsorin (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Fifty years ago, on March 18, 1906, at Montesson near Paris, a small aeroplane made a free flight of some forty feet after leaving the ground entirely under its own power. It was the 'first heavier-than-air machine of the kind to do so." - Flight magazine, 30 March 1956

--Lsorin (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good documentation, Lsorin. The important issue in 1906 was whether a heavier than air (HTA) machine could take off on wheels (without incline or catapult). Vuia did it, but even though this additional source says he was "first" to do it, as you know, earlier claims for the same thing exist: for Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse (they all had wheels), maybe Watson. Possible wording: "It was the first well-documented unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven heavier than air flying machine with a wheeled undercarriage." The difference from Santos Dumont is that SD's flights had "official" witnesses from the Aero Club of France. With careful and correct wording, all these articles can live in harmony.DonFB (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! I agree with your entry. We can add a new section to add the other sources which claim that others like you listed (Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse) were firsts as well but not as well published as Vuia.--Lsorin (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but I suggest we *not* add in stuff about all the other people. That's not what this article is for. With careful wording, we don't need to explain everyone else in all of these articles. It only causes arguments. I need to take a break, so I won't be revising the introduction right now. Obviously, you're free to do it. The sentence I suggested above needs to be preceded with an opening sentence that he was an inventor/pioneer who designed/built/flew 40 feet, etc....Then followed by the new sentence. DonFB (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I give a try now. Please check. I added the section as well there. We can add the reference as well with regards to Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse. I will leave the {POV-lead} untouched until we get more comments.

--Lsorin (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) The references Slorin listed describe it as the first plane to fly under it's own power. The Wrights flew without a catapult in 1903, and in 1904 at Huffman Prarie. There were numerous witnesses, and photographs were taken. So how can these references be accurate? It appears that the only distinction of the Vuia plane was that it had wheels instead of skids.(and that it never flew more than 70 feet and was never described as making any controlled course changes.) I'm skeptical that putting wheels on an airplane was a noteworthy achievement. Especially since wheels were used on virtually all other aircraft designed during this period.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that wheels are what made the machine different from the Wright Flyer. The wheels (and engine and sufficient smooth open space) are what enabled it to prove that it was possible to do something not known for certain to have been done before: take off without an assist or incline. Putting wheels on was not noteworthy, but taking off on them was/is. DonFB (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Romaniantruths add you concerns in the new sandbox. Otherwise I are going forever to edit, revert and re-edit the same stuff again and again. I think you are not questioning again the importance of Vuia's plane, with the consequence of being removed from Wikipedia! ( I still hope that your mind is still working to some extent and you are not a fanatic.

--Lsorin (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No DonFB, taking off without assist or an incline Is well-known to have been done before. The Wrights did it in front of witnesses and were photographed doing it repeatedly. And Lsorin, your threat to "forever edit, revert and re-edit" is not productive.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not with wheels. It seems trivial--and from our perspective now, it probably is--but that's the difference. That whole introductory sentence describes a feat which was different from what was---and still is, if we say "well-documented"---believed to have preceded it. If you only take a piece of the sentence and isolate it from the rest, you can make your point. But the sentence includes "wheeled undercarriage" as part of the qualifications for what Vuia did. That's why I can support it. There is another way of expressing his achievement that I can also support. This other way explains why Vuia's hop was (and is, to some people) such a big deal:
"Vuia's short flight proved to people at the time that it was possible for a manned, powered, heavier than air flying machine to make an unassisted takeoff from level ground."
The more I think about it, the more I think the article should make the point about what people knew/thought then. At the time, the Wright flights were severely questioned/doubted. That's why Vuia's flights (and Santos Dumont's for that matter) took on so much importance. Without opening a huge can of worms about who really flew first, the article can and should explain the importance of Vuia's flights in their historical context. DonFB (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree! I've checked carefully and fount not such a proof like horizontal take-off by Wrights, without an external device. Even the weels left

behind are external devices, not speaking about the highly descendant slope in most of pics I've seen, (done by them). If you are so sure, just give the bib. reference to such takeoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.83.181 (talk • contribs) 20:02, September 22, 2014


What's the proof that Vuia's hop proved anything to people? The sources I read say that the Wright doubters, who were appalled at the total failure of their own attempts to duplicate a Wright aircraft from incomplete sketches, continued much as before until 1908 when Wilbur Wright flew circles for them in France. It was 1908 that was the year of catalyst action in the aeronautical world, not 1906. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I was influenced to make the suggestion after reading an article in Flight magazine from March 30, 1956. It's listed in the article Bibliography:
"Vuia's little monoplane set a pattern for aircraft to come and set the seal on the fact that a flying machine equipped with wheels could take off from the ground direct, and under the power of its engine alone."
It's likely, however, that Santos Dumont's flights had much more influence on the European aeronautical community. I don't agree, though, that Euro-aeronauts "continued much as before until 1908" when Wilbur arrived. Throughout 1907, European pioneers like Bleriot, Delagrange and Farman were making hops of increasing length, arguably inspired by Santos Dumont and Vuia before him.
Even before Wilbur made his first flight in France, one of the Euro pioneers (possibly Delagrange, I forget) had flown for more than 15 minutes in Italy. Wilbur's 1908 flying was the "catalyst" for coordinated bank-and-turning by the Europeans, but not for getting off the ground in flying machines. They had been doing that for more than a year before Wilbur arrived (although, ultimately, that also was inspired by reports of WB success in America). I don't have deep knowledge of what the sources say about Vuia's influence, but the source quoted above does indicate he had some. DonFB (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested compromise introduction

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

My latest offering of a "compromise" introduction:

"Traian Vuia was a Romanian inventor and aviation pioneer who designed, built and flew an early flying machine. His first flight covered about 12 meters (40 feet) at Montesson, France on March 18, 1906. Romanian aviation historians say Vuia made the first "autonomous" or unassisted "self-propelled" flight from a level surface by a manned, heavier than air, powered flying machine. [footnotes] Many other aviation historians do not describe Vuia's flight in those terms, but accept that he made several brief flights a few feet above the ground, each flight covering a distance of less than 100 feet." [footnotes]

I will copy here Binksternet's advice that he wrote on the Coanda talk page, advice you've probably seen but is worth repeating and which I strongly support and endorse:

"We look at reliable sources and compare them. If they differ, we present both versions with attribution. We do not try to determine which reliable source is correct so that we can present just one side."

Comments welcome. DonFB (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Such an entry makes the Vuia-1 completely irrelevant for the early flying machines listing or any kind of listing in Wikipedia. Binksternet and Romaniantruths are stuck to Google's searches in English language which is short of strong references about the plane. I wonder why anybody in the world will build a full flying replica ( in this case two ) of an airplane one century old, not relevant for the history of early machines.
I would agree to remove all possible references to this Vuia-1 plane from the whole Wikipedia instead of having this kind of lies listed. --Lsorin (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that your tone has retrogressed. I don't appreciate your calling my good-faith effort to write an acceptable introduction "lies". That kind of intemperate and ill-considered language does not help our work here. Also, stop talking about what you don't like about other editors, and start talking about the text of the article.
You have not given a single specific reason for your objection, nor what part of the wording you find objectionable. Specific comments on specific text will help improve the article, not irresponsible accusations of "lies". DonFB (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Lsorin, your all-or-nothing approach is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Your assertion that DonFB's compromise approach makes the aircraft irrelevant is wrong—it remains relevant even when there is a dispute. More important than supposed "lies" or truth is a straight statement to the reader that some experts think one way, and some think another way. Reliable, verifiable sources are more important than the variable and arguable concept of truth.
We are not here to determine why a group of air enthusiasts would build a replica. That has nothing to do with improving the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
DonFB, I hope there this is just a misunderstanding. I have really appreciated you entries and especially your good-faith and your neutrality regarding this topic. What I question is the solidity of the references used for your new proposal? I really fell this is just the personal felling of some editors ( excluding you ), but you start to be manipulated by their personal theories without reliable references. --Lsorin (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


I gave no references. I wrote an example of how this article can begin, which you and Romaniantruths will have no trouble supporting with the references that you both have been studying very carefully. It's time for you and him to make an effort to write a compromise introduction, while refraining from criticizing each other. The warning tags should not remain indefinitely at the top of the article. They severely reduce the credibility of the article, which is contrary to our goal of "improving the article." DonFB (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning tags

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I haven't seen any new suggestions lately for wording the article, so I plan to remove both warning tags from top of the article in the next day or so. DonFB (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree--Lsorin (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC

Faulty references

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The 1909 Flight reference credits Vuia with a first flight on October 8 of 5 Meters duration. I have changed the footnote to reflect this. and will add this reference to the Documentation section shortly. This is only one of numerous references which, taken as a whole, throw serious doubt on Vuia's claimed earlier flight.Romaniantruths (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree! That is definitely a faulty reference! There is no account in the magazine who wrote that list and based on what account 3 years after they happened. The L’AÉROPHILE magazine was recording on monthly basis Vuia's tests in 1906! Please learn some French Romaniantruths, before starting messing up articles in Wikipedia. Maybe the author in Flight magazine was having the same problem like you today.--Lsorin (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the footnote text which said the October 8 flight was Vuia's "first". The source does not say "first". It also does not say that he did not make a flight "until" that date. The source says only that he made a flight on the date, without referring to what he did or did not do previously. Several secondary sources give specific dates for Vuia flights beginning in March, 1906, including the Hargrave/Pioneers website listed in External Links of this article. I have seen no reliable source that doubts, questions or refutes Vuia's March 18 takeoff, or others he made in the summer of 1906. A conclusion or deduction by a Wikipedia editor, based on an assumption of the meaning of a particular source, cannot be included in an article, even in a footnote. DonFB (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the text you removed. I'm sorry you're having trouble reading the reference correctly. try reading it again. It lists "the performances which have been made." This is a very simple phrase which should not be confusing in the least. And you have seen a reliable source which refutes Vuia's claim of March, 1906. In fact you just deleted it for no reason other than your claimed inability to understand simple declarative sentences in English. Your conclusion that Vuia flew in March because you're ignorant of evidence to the contrary will not stand.70.231.227.221 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And the hargrave site credits Clement Ader with a flight of 164 feet in 1890.

Revisions

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I eliminated the "Documentation" section, which remained very poorly written and impossible to understand. In rewriting it, I finished with a single sentence about Santos Dumont, which I put in an earlier part of the article. The "Documentation" part threatened to become another argumentative section, with back-and-forth comments about the other aviation pioneers. People who want to learn about other pioneers can read the First Flying Machine and Early Flight articles, which are both linked from this article. I made some new section headings for the article. DonFB (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I will be re-adding the documentation section because it is an appropriate place to discuss the shoddy, almost worthless documentation of Vuia's claims.70.231.227.221 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I revised wording in the reinstated Documentation section. The Wikipedia Manual of Style Words To Watch section (WP:CLAIM) says: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." The sources for this article do not support use of the word "claim," because the sources do not raise questions or express doubts about the Vuia flights. Using the word "claim" in this article expresses only an editor's doubt, not that of the standard sources for Vuia. The same is true for the phrase: "but no other witnesses were present"--it is an expression of implied doubt or skepticism which is not supported in the sources about Vuia. DonFB (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I made similar reversions to your edits in the Introduction, for the same reasons. Very disappointed that you decided to change the Intro without discussing it first, which was a process we were all involved in. DonFB (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible the remove the text referred by the reference [6]? It does not make sense in the same article to have the same text twice.--Lsorin (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. Be bold. I agree. DonFB (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Documentation section

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

The "Documentation" section is not well-written and is hard to understand. It seems like an "apology" to supporters of the Wrights and other pioneers and is probably not needed, if that is its purpose. What is it trying to say, and what is its purpose? DonFB (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the title of the section is not clear enough. I think the section is needed to store the references to material contesting the things presented by the main references. Similar to the See also hoax theories. Guys like Romanianthruts can list their links under that section, without making the whole airplane irrelevant even for listing it in Wikipedia, as we discussed above.--Lsorin (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The section title is not a good one. You said: "I think the section is needed to store the references to material contesting the things presented by the main references." Ok, I think I see what you mean; I think you mean it's a place to put (referenced) arguments against Vuia. If so, as I wrote earlier in this discussion, I really don't think that's necessary or a good idea. I think it would be better to include a single sentence somewhere in this article that says controversy exists about early flying machines and include a link in that sentence to the Wikipedia articles First flying machines and/or Early flight.

I just don't see the value of cluttering this article with all the arguments for Whitehead or Ader or Pearse or Jatho of the Wright brothers or anybody else. That's not what this article is for. This article should remain focused on Vuia, not all the arguments about him and the other pioneers. This article still needs a lot of improvement in its description of Vuia's life and accomplishments. That's what editors here should be doing, not arguing endlessly about the various aviation pioneers. DonFB (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In my comment in a previous section of this discussion where I suggested new intro wording, I mentioned the names of the other pioneers (Whitehead, Jatho, etc.). My purpose was to justify the phrase "well-documented," so this article would not say simply that Vuia was "first." But in mentioning those other pioneers, I did *not* intend to suggest that this article should have a section about them and their claims. DonFB (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's remove the whole "Documentation" section. I really think that we need a special article "Controversies of the first flying machines" linked from the Early flight and First flying machines where all this things can be added. I see that at least in 'First flying machines' controversies are coming out on daily basis related to all kind of planes. What do you think?--Lsorin (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of a "Controversies" article is worth considering. I've thought about it also. I'm quite uncertain what the best approach would be, because Wikipedia already has First Flying Machine and Early Flight articles, and a new "Controversies" article would include a lot of duplication from those existing articles. But I have thought about the idea of a "Controversies" article that would cover the arguments in more depth, instead of just listing the claims/achievements. As of right now, I'm not about to create such an article myself--it's a little too daunting. But more power to anyone who does. DonFB (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to make a sandbox and play a bit before we publish it. We can send all the editors rising those questions to that sandbox. When ever that sandbox will make some, sense will be published as an article. I expect somebody like Romanianthrus to be very active in there. ;)
Another interesting link. It contains the articles from L'Aerophile about Vuia and his tests. It would be nice to be translated. --Lsorin (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you do it, post a link. I'll be interested. Aerophile material looks informative. But beyond my language ability. DonFB (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I created this sandbox. I will add it to the talk pages as well. Let's gather all this stuff flying around in that page. --Lsorin (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

listing the exact same reference already listed on this page does not qualify as another reference. Even though you listed it without saying what it was it's obvious that your top reference is the same one lsorin listed. This article also claims that the Wrights required a catapult to take off. Cerna is just repeating a lie commonly used by those trying to prove that Vuia was the first to take off with on-board power alone.Romaniantruths

  • no shit, its lie? hahaha. Because, you said so? Cool, hope you will land after all with the foots on Earth, from your alternative world, where probably you talk with Gibbs ghosts, and wake up to reality

(talk) 15:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Now let's take a look at your second reference. It credits Vuia with "a few short hops", and says the first official flight in Europe was by Santos Dumont.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Add you comment to sandbox. --Lsorin (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about lsorin? discussion for this page goes on this page. Your sandbox is for you to play around in, this page is for discussion. That's why it's called a discussion page.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths there is not a single place in that article from 2 January 1909 explaining that those flight are the "earliest" as you have introduced in your latest edit.--Lsorin (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traian_Vuia/Archive_1&oldid=677402308"