Talk:Traian Vuia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ion G Nemes, stop please denigrating Vuia without citing any source

Nemes - "he says it was so windy that day that moments after he 'landed' his plane was picked up by the wind and smashed against a tree."

Nemes, your personal thoughts have no value as long as they are not backed by primary sources. Where do you see Vuia's plane picked up by the wind and smashed against a tree?!! Vuia just says that after taking off and flying 12 m, all the time having a lateral wind coming from one direction, the plane landed and then it was overturned by the wind.

This is the flight performed on March 18, 1906 by Traian Vuia. The text was published by L'Aerophile in April 1906.

"Dans un dernier essai, avec un vent de côté, j'ai augmenté l'admission de la vapeur et la machine s'est élevée tout d'un coup à une hauteur de 0 m. 60 à 1 m. Mais aussitôt que l'appareil a quitté le sol, l'hélice a ralenti et la machine poussée par le vent de côté, après quelques balancements, s'est posée dans le champ, si doucement que je n'ai pu sentir le moindre choc ni savoir à quel moment elle a touché terre. Là, la machine a été renversée par le vent; l'hélice et trois tubes des plans sustentateurs ont été endommagés. La dis- tance parcourue en l'air est d'environ 12 m. J'ai pu constater que l'arbre à cames était, en effet, au point mort, et que c'est ce fait qui a provoqué le ralentissement de l'hélice et finalement son arrêt complet.

Je ne pourrais pas indiquer la vitesse au moment où la machine a quitté le sol, mais j'estime qu'elle n'a pas été de beaucoup supérieure à 50 kilom. à l'heure. La puissance déployée n'était que le tiers environ de celle dont je puis disposer.

L'inclinaison de l'aéroplane a été de 10°.

Les faits dont j'ai pu me rendre compte sont les suivants : 1" Aussitôt que la machine acquiert une certaine vitesse, l'allégement fait disparaître l'effet des inégalités du sol ; 2° Aussitôt que l'hélice s'arrête, la machine ne parcourt pas plus de 20 à 30 m. sur le sol, tandis qu'auparavant, non munie du plan sustentateur, elle parcourait jusqu'à 150 m. après l'arrêt de 1 hélice. Ceci démontre que la résistance opposée à ce plan annule très vite la force vive de la machine lancée ; 3° Les résistances du bâti, du châssis d'une machine comme la mienne sont, à la vitesse nécessaire au soulèvement, tellement faibles qu'on peut les négliger ; 4° Que la force nécessaire pour soulever un aéroplane est de beaucoup inférieure à celle annoncée par certains aviateurs ; 5° Que l'aéroplane n'est pas une machine dangereuse si l'on n'emploie que les seuls moyens du bord pour la lancer ; 6° Le départ d'un aéroplane monté sur roues caoutchoutées peut s'effectuer même sur de mauvaises routes." Source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6551285w/f12.image.r=l%27aerophile.langEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.24.148 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that in the Romanian propaganda biography that is used for the original source of most of these claims, and as a matter of fact, even THAT propaganda piece represents the article as uncommitted on the question of whether he's a liar. And this article does not change the fact that there is no proof whatsoever for his claim. This combined with his later history of making stupid, obviously inaccurate claims throws the whole story into serious doubt.Ion G Nemes (talk)

Nonsense. The primary source for Vuia's claims are contemporary issues of lAerophile: although there are no official witnesses Vuia's claims were taken entirely seriously at the time, and are taken seriously by subsequent historians.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No you are wrong. that article doesn't accept his claim as fact, and it isn't a primary source. There are no witnesses at all. Just a letter claiming a hop and claiming witnesses to the putative hop. All coming from a 'man' who later amply proved his lying and duplicitous nature.

They are NOT taken seriously by subsequent historians, as I pointed out in my reply to your LAST attempt to falsely credit this lying scumbag with a flight which he never showed any evidence at all for. Ion G Nemes (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith writes that Vuia was successful in attaining a "powered hop" in his aircraft, which was surprisingly close in build to later monoplanes. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ion G Nemes Just in what way is a contemporary issue of l'Aerophile not a primary source. And if you read what l'Aerophile has to say, it is clear that the contemporary aviation community took him seriously. Just what is you problem??TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, your assertions have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. If you actually have a germane point to make, please make it. I'm also still waiting to hear why you think Vuia's hop which you quote Gibbs Smith as calling 'unsucessful', should have precedence over Ader's hop 16 years earlier which was much longer. And just who says Vuia's plane was 'surprisingly close' to later monoplanes---You, or Gibbs Smith? Vuia's plane was actually surprisingly close to the gaffigny design of 1890. Right down to the fully pivoted wing and the carbon dioxide powered motor. This design was well known at the time from both gaffigny's own books and by Octave Chanute's Progress in flying machines, the seminal work of this period. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith certainly considers the aircraft unsuccessful overall, since it did not fly far enough to meet his standards. He said any shape of machine could be made airborne for a short duration if enough power was applied—even a barn door could make a short hop, but that was not sufficient to support the claim of powered, controlled, manned flight. In that light, Vuia was unsuccessful. However, Gibbs-Smith does not doubt Vuia ever made such a short hop. He affirms Vuia's short hop. We should not cast so much doubt on the Vuia claim. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, your post is in no way germane to the current discussion, and once again you have refused to address any of the specific questions i asked you:

1:Why have you continued to insist that Vuia's hop was somehow an advance over Ader, or the several other men who achieved more earlier? 2: Does Gibbs Smith describe Vuia's plane as 'surprisingly close to later monoplanes" or are these your words?70.231.226.35 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LongTone, L'Aerophile is not a primary source for this claim. They did not witness it, or hear from any witness for this claimed initial flight other than Vuia himself. Vuia is the primary source here, and claims made by individuals about their own achievements which are unsupported by other evidence are not accepted as fact here. In addition, your assertion that LAerophile is the sole arbiter of opinion for the aviation community at this time is highly questionable. In addition, if you bother to check the first reference in this article, which I pointed out to you the last time you tried to get this page changed to follow your POV, It does not accept Vuia's claim for this flight, but merely observes that "according to some reports" he made this flight. I also find it quite interesting that are now asserting that we should ignore modern opinion and just say what you claim was the opinion of sources at that time. This does not follow wikipedia policy, but is EXACTLY the same tack taken by the anonymous editor who was involved here until his 6 month block for posting personal information. Are you guys pals? Or are you just emulating him? You certainly are showing a remarkable lack of manners and tendency toward abusiveness in your posts. Especially for a 'veteran' editor who is supposed to know better. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not counting the IP editor, there are now three editors opposing your POV, the promotion of which appears to be pretty well all you are interested in doing on WP. As well as not understanding what is meant by a primary source you also clearly do not understand the notion of consensus.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet has said nothing contradicting my point. He is only saying that Vuia made a hop at some time.

If he is trying to support your claim, he is in dire need of some basic writing lessons (I doubt this is the case, but if he says so I will of course believe him.). All we know about sleeppillow is that she changed the page based on your assertion that "as far as I know" it is universally accepted. The faults to her action, and your request for it, are obvious to anyone familiar with the rules here. Are you familiar with the rules here? As to what I am or am not interested in doing on WP, that is not germane either. Being rude and abusive will not help your case, nor will your untrue assertions about what a primary source is. Your assertion that wikipedia is a democracy and that I have been outvoted here are interesting though; if it is true then I suppose there must be a page explaining that wikipedia IS a democracy, and that facts are to be ignored when they do not comport with the desires of whomever happens to be editing the page at any particular time. Since you are a veteran editor,please help this poor novice out by posting a link to that page. If that is the case then I assume there must not be a page explaining that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Binksternet could no doubt help you here, if he is actually willing to discuss this situation in any way and not just make meaninglessly irrelevant posts: What about it Binksternet, IS wikipedia a democracy? It is also clear that you need to buy yourself a dictionary and look up the definition of consensus. Furthermore, you are directly contradicted by reliable sources footnoted in this article. just what makes you think your POV pushing trumps published articles in national aviation magazines? I have mentioned this point THREE times now, and you continue to ignore it. So far your aguments have been: 1: It's true as far as I know 2: We must rely only on a letter written by the claimant with no evidence whatsoever because it was reprinted in newsletter for an aviation club, and this trumps all other reliable sources. 3: I falsely claim that three editors are supporting my point, so You are outvoted because wikipedia IS a democracy.

I however am saying that some sources say he flew on that date. And why am I saying this? Because some sources say he flew on that date. What is my evidence? the reliable sources already footnoted in this very article. Furthermore, finding a source that says he flew on that date does not impeach the reliability of an article claiming that some sources say he flew on that date, can you at least understand that? Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are attempting to overemphasise the fact that Vuia's claims are claims: this implies that they are false. Your edits have, in case you have not noticed, are being reverted by a number of other editors. And 'Aerophile is undeniably a primary source; moreover to describe it as a "newsletter for an aviation club" is to totally ignore its true significance. Had l'Aerophile not taken Vuia's claims seriously they would not have bothered to print them, not once but on several occasions.TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Vuia's claims ARE claims. You are trying to hide this, by deleting reliable sources which deny your POV. Just like your pal from Montreal did. This is considered vandalism.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And I see you have also removed the reliable source which says Vuia's plane was blown into a tree after landing, another thing your 'pal' from Montreal objected to. I will revert this edit as well. If you feel some of it has merit, then re-introduce it WITHOUT deleting reliable sources that you and your Buddy don't like.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who is pushing a point of view. I have nowhere denied that Vuia's claims are just claims, and the removal of sources is irrelevant: all they are are claims that he flew, and nobody is denying that he made these claims. Which secondary or tertiary source is used to back the statement does not matter. What you fail to understand is that if you want say some sources claim there is a strong implication that other reputable sources deny these claims. If you can produce any, then cite them. Otherwise, I will continue to undo you edits.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The removal of reliable sources to push your claim is vandalism. The source you tried to remove to clear the way for your POV pushing says "some". I have already mentioned this here to you. Are you arguing that Air And Space Magazine is not a reliable source? If so, you are quite wrong. I am NOT required to do 'independent research' to support reliable sources. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just what POV claim am I making??? You are the one who is making the POV claim that Vuia is a 'lying scumbag'. All I am doing is removing weasel wording that you keep reinserting. The fact that Vuia's claims rest on his own testimony is well covered in the article, and in case you have not noticed I have never made any attempt to change this. Read and take on board my previous post.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the fact that vuia WAS a lying scumbag (fortunately he's dead now (hurray!) ) Is not material to the question at hand. Which is why you keep changing the article to contradict reliable sources. This is vandalism. Perhaps at some other time I will update this article with details on what a pathetic, lying scumbag vuia was, but that is not what I am doing at this time. I'm just trying to keep you from vandalizing this pathetic, lying scumbag Vuia's article in contradiction to the reliable sources cited here.Ion G Nemes (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

==Stop vandalizing the article, Binksternet==

You cannot disprove that the reliable source cited which says 'according to SOME acounts..' by doing independent research collecting some sources which say it was true, because that's exactly what he said: "according to some accounts". I have reverted your vandalism. Ion G Nemes (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandal is a strong term to use - this is a content or behaviour dispute. Suggest you strike it above. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Essentially it's a behaviour dispute, with Ion G Nemes insisting on his wording in preference to wording preferred by me, Binksternet & DonFB. He is clearly pushing a point of view based on his opinion that Vuia is a 'lying scumbag', which apart from the odd edit to the Henri Coanda arcticle is the sole extent of his activity on WP. Incidentally the 'relable source' which Nemes is quoting 'some sources state' from is not really reliable, since in point of fact there is really only one primary source for Vuia's claims. Allegations of original research are ludicrous.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted)

O. Chanute about Vuia

Citation: he (Vuia) was the first to demonstrate that a flying apparatus could rise into the air by running upon wheels (four in this case) upon an ordinary road. Source: O. Chanute, Pending European Experiments in Flying, The American aeronaut and aerostatist, v.1, no.1-6, 1907-08, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?q1=vuia;id=hvd.hx3qbs;view=image;seq=19;num=13;start=1;sz=10;page=search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.109.146 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the remark of O. Chanute about T. Vuia: "He was the first to demonstrate that a flying apparatus could rise into the air by running upon wheels upon an ordinary road" which emphasizes the main contribution of Vuia to the birth of aviation. It has not been clear before what exactly Vuia did and whether he was a major or minor aviation pioneer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.108.59 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

These bogus claims about Vuia have been discussed here before. They are rather silly since several men made powered hops before vuia. They are just more Romanian propaganda, like the claims for jet engines and insulin being invented there. Ion G Nemes (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Binksternet, you are well aware that Vuia was NOT the first to rise in the air by running on wheels. This has been discussed here time after time after time, and you are also aware that that only SOME sources credit vuia with that early flight (as the reliable source referenced states oh so clearly.) In light of this, and your long experience with the rules here, your continued reversions can only be construed as willful obstructioinIon G Nemes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ion G Nemes, you are the disruptive editor and well you know it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

By far the majority of sources which mention Vuia give him credit for rising off the ground for a short distance in his machine. The locus of the dispute is not there; instead the dispute is whether to say he flew or not. Gibbs-Smith says he made a powered hop; many others agree with this stance. Proud Romanians say Vuia flew. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In point of fact I have not come across any source (reliable ot otherwise) that maintains that Vuia's flight claims were bogus.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, your last post does not address the issue being discussed in ANY WAY. And stop vandalizing this page, and stop making dishonest claims that my edits are vandalism through twinkle. Longtone, what you do or dont admit to having seen is not pertinent to this discussion either. I will AGAIN revert your vandalism so that the page matches the Reliable sources referenced there. Ion G Nemes (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet ANOTHER atempt to get longtone and binsternet to explain their edits

What reason do either of you have for repeatedly changing the text so it contradicts the references? It says quite clearly that only some accounts credit him with a hop (we ALL agree he never flew, right) in March 1906. And on this very page we have a reference that says flight doesn't credit him with any hop at all until oct 8.Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As explained many times, he is generally credited with these short flights. You have yet to come up with a reliable source that states that he was lying or exaggerating. The wording 'some sources do ..." implies that "some souces dont"... so where are they. I really don't understand your position: it is after all perfectly clear that the flights are claimed rather than indisputably witnessed. And btw failing to report something is not the same as denying that it happened.TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I realize that YOU say he is generally credited with these flights, but the reliable source says that "according to some accounts" he made that March 18th HOP (Not a flight, these things are differentiated by modern sources). Which means-according to what you just said- he is saying that some sources don't. He is a reliable source, and I don't have to do independent research to prove what he says. In fact, we aren't supposed to do that. And I'm not supposed to have to bring this up again and again and again only to have to continue to claim that there is no such source. The Vuia page itself does ALREADY have two references that do not endorse his claim for a march HOP. The one you were just talking about, and the journal FLIGHT, which lists his first HOP as Oct 8. But this second source is not needed to confirm an already reliable source.

And it is NOT made clear that the flights are claimed and not indisputably witnessed: At first it says "He is credited with" and later down the page it is described as fact.

An additional problem is the entirely spurious claim that he was the first to achieve a short HOP with a wheeled aircraft. This is absolutely untrue, as historians agree that numerous inventors did this BEFORE vuia did. Years before in many cases. Phillips, Ader, Jatho, and several others have better documentation for making flights before 1906 than vuia does for his 1906 flight. And Binksternet, are you still STONEWALLING(a form of Vandalism, according to the posted wikipedia rules), or are you going to discuss your edits? This means saying something that actually relates to the subject at hand, and not making irrelevant posts like EVERY ONE you have made lately on this talk page. (which is tendentious editing, another form of GAMING THE SYSTEM, which is also classed as VANDALISM according to the posted wikipedia rules).Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

The RELIABLE SOURCES clearly state that SOME accounts only say he flew on that first occasion. why do you keep vandalizing the page so that it does not match the reference?Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Improper to accuse editor by name in a Talk heading; changed. Improper to accuse editor of vandalism when issue is a disagreement on the topic. Vandalism is a very serious charge and only to be made when edits are clearly intended to damage or discredit encyclopedia. That is not the case here. DonFB (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

repeated unsourced edits, gaming the system and stonewalling ALL qualify as vandalism. And he is doing every one of these here.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are your personal perceptions about activity of editor with whom you disagree on the subject. No other editor watching this article has supported your perception of the alleged "vandalism"--because it is not present. Debate the topic; avoid epithets. DonFB (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to debate. The reference says quite clearly that some accounts credit vuia with a hop in march 1906. Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to debate with someone who does not listen and believes their view has more weight than that of a number of other editors. If I didn't think that he'd only be back as a sock I'd support a topic ban for Nemes.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

More rudeness and abuse from the longtone! But of course as long as abuse and insults and attempted doxing is directed toward ME, evrybody editing this page is perfectly fine with it. What better evidence for the bias and viciousness of the editors assembled here? Goes right along with DONFB's spurious claim that VANDALISM is not defined by the rules, but by any 3 editors who choose to gang up on somebody to abuse them because they are interfering with the disruptive edits they are for some strange reason trying to post here.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More problems with sources

From the trajan vuia page:"L'aerophile emphasized that vuia's machine had the capability to take off from a flat surface" This is the Feb 1906 issue. So they were saying it could take off BEFORE he ever tried to do so. This reference speaks volumes about the quality of some of these French reference citations. Or perhaps the extent to which they have been misused to make vuia look like much more than he was. Ha Ha Ha Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, does everyone agree that this should be changed to: 'Before he attempted any flights, L'Aerophile was already asserting that Vuia's machine had the capability to take off from a flat surface.' Or does anyone think that the fact that they were asserting this without any impirical evidence is unimportant? It certainly shows just how much they valued actual evidence at L'aerophile. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So What Does Longtone Want??

You just said above that it is perfectly clear that the flights are only claimed and not actually witnessed. Well, that is not true of the current edit. However it WAS true of my edit before you asked Sleeppillow to change it to say he definitely did it. In fact, it actually used the exact same formulation : 'He claimed' before DONFB insisted on its being changed to, 'he said'. So why did you try to change it in the first place from something you now say you desire? Changing it back to before sleeeppillow's edit (which you requested in the first place), or even changing it back to, "he said' (my earlier edit DONFB objected to) would then satisfy your current position on the wording of his claimed HOPS. Seems like you've wasted a lot of time abusing me and calling me a sockpuppet (nice manners Longtone) to get to where you're requesting what you already had. Of course there's still the question of the added claim that his was the first wheeled plane to make a HOP. But this is clearly unsupportable anyway in light of all the others who made HOPS in wheeled aircraft first. Even Binksternet seemed to have given up on THAT proposition, but it is hard to tell because he was stonewalling and making tendentious edits back then too! So what about it, Binksternet, do you still insist that Vuia's 'unsucessful' (Your words) HOP in 1906 was somehow qualitatively different from Ader's, or Phillip's, or Hargrave's 'unsucessful' (again, your word) HOPS years earlier? If so, you should discuss your position, since it appears to be the only problem here. Even DONFB was agreed on this(although I suppose he may insist that the talk page record is 'Just my perceptions', as he does about the posted wikipedia rules), as can be seen in the talk page above.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What I want is wording that avoid weasel words, such as 'some sources claim', which is the wording you insist on Pay attention.TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And btw I have never accused you of being a sock. There isn't anybody else behaving in the same hysterical manner as you that you are plausibly a sock of. What I did say was that if you were banned I would not be surprised to see you back under another name, since you seem to be an obsessive monomaniac.TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And still more abuse from Longtone! Good thing your wikipals, Binksternet and DONFB and GraehamLeggitt only complain about my posts and allow you to violate any rule you want to with impunity, isn't it?

But back to the page edits: You added "claimed" to the page yourself, Longtone. It says so right in the edit history. So do you want to return to the 'he claimed' formulation you yourself initially introduced to this page? This means for his alleged FIRST flight as well. And how about addressing my other queries as well. You are supposed to discuss things here, which means replying to questions and not just calling me names. I also want to know what you think about the claim on this page about L'Aerophile maintaining that his plane could take off from a flat surface a month Before he tried to do so. I already posted about that, but you seem to have decided not to engage on the talk page. Why is that? Aren't you here to build an encyclopedia?Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For the 23rd time, Vuia was NOT the first to make a 'HOP'

Who here claims that vuia was the first to make a brief HOP in a wheeled motorized airplane? This is contradicted my pretty much all aviation historians because of the previous HOPs of Jatho, Ader, Phillips, etc. AND who agrees that he was NOT the first to do this? I want to hear from all editors who claim to be involved in this dispute. And I mean actual germane statements, not tendentious edits that do not address the point. This means YOU, Binksternet and DONFB. Either discuss the issue, or stop deleting my edits. You are required by the rules here to do so. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are inventing a dispute here, misrepresenting my stance. With your battlefield approach, I don't think it will be constructive to debate you. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are required to discuss the issues. You have resorted to continual GAMING THE SYSTEM by STONEWALLING and TENDENTIOUS EDITS instead. These are all VANDALISM. Stop vandalizing this page and stop falsely claiming a consensus that does not exist.Ion G Nemes (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro text

Giving close thought to the text of the article introduction, I do think the following sentence may be a bit problematic:

"He was the first to demonstrate that a flying apparatus could rise into the air by running upon wheels upon an ordinary road."

The sentence accurately reflects Chanute's published comment, which is referenced. However, in view of information about the experiments of Ader and Jatho from reliable secondary sources in the years since, the use of Chanute's statement without qualification seems less than accurate. The introduction can simply state what Vuia did, and the Chanute statement could be eliminated. Or, the Chanute comment can be retained, but supplemented with (referenced) text to explain that historians have described previous experimenters as achieving a similar feat. The quoted sentence gives Chanute's unequivocal opinion, but in the time since he commented, information in reliable sources about predecessors to Vuia can be seen as contradicting Chanute's assessment. DonFB (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Giving close thought to the text of the article introduction, I do think that following sentence may be a bit problematic:

Giving close thought to the text of the article introduction, I do think the following sentence may be a bit problematic:

"He is credited with a powered hop of 11 meters made on March 18"

The sentence reflects no published comment, but only Binksternet's unencyclopedic weasel worded attempt to perpetuate the myth that Vuia's flight of that date is a fact. In light of the modern reliable source saying that "SOME accounts " say he made a HOP on March 18, making an unequivocal statement like this without qualification seems less than accurate. The introduction can simply state, with qualification what vuia claimed he did, or can be eliminated from the lede entirely since this is not the place for contentious and disputed issues according to wikipedia policy. The quoted sentence gives vuia's unsupported claim, but letters to the editor are not reliable sources. The article used as the other source here is an impeccable source and should not be used inaccurately here to make it seem to say what the author clearly disagreed with.Ion G Nemes (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

IMON the wheels are a pretty trivial claim, but I believe that Ader used a boardwalk. Don't know about Jatho, but as I say its a trivial claim, merely to do with having enough grunt to overcome rolling friction.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, since Vuia said repeatedly that he was the first to ever fly by using wheels, and that he didn't use a catapult, where the Wrights did, I feel I may be skirting too close to suggesting that he was a liar, which has caused a certain amount of friction here in the past. So I'll drop the 'first to fly with wheels' question entirely to show my good faith. Do whatever you like. I realize that this question has been one that several editors have gone back and forth in their opinions on, and as such my participation may not be worth the grief it may cause. I'm going to take a wikibreak and dedicate myself anew to working out a consensus on the whole march 18th hopped, or claimed to hop, or according to some sources hopped, problem when I return. This may be some time. I'm off to read up on political theory and terminology, and have found a GREAT article about the term, "stalking horse".Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

apology to Binksternet

I realize that although tendentiousness is a violation (Vandalism), I have used this point somewhat excessively at some times in my pique at posts which I will not further characterize at this time. I am sorry that I did this, and would still regret it's occurence even if it had not caused you any consternation. I hope that when I return we can communicate more effectively if we find ourselves editing the same page.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

the lede

Binksternet, I am unaware that the number of sources is important if they are all just parroting the same unsubstantiated claims. You seem to in agreement with me on this based on your editing history at the Coanda 1910 page: That hundreds of internet sites parroting the same unsubstantiated claims do not prove those claims. How do you see this case as different? In addition, your use of the passive voice statement, "He is credited with" is also highly problematic. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ion G Nemes, if you are going to name another editor as you have done with Binksternet please copy them in, or ping them, so that they are aware. Alternatively, in this instance the comment could be placed on the user's own talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Flat Out, I am unaware of any such rule, and reading this talk page makes it clear that no such rule is observed here by the editors. If you actually believe there is a rule then be sure to tell all the other editors on wikipedia who regularly ignore it to obey your commands. You will find many opportunities on this page. If you have nothing else to contribute but still find it difficult to resist coming here to carp at me, then i suggest that you consider a voluntary permanent edit ban on all wikispaces. cheers! Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I am dismayed that you are still refusing to discuss your edits. You are required to discuss disputed edits on the talk page. You have been told this many, many times before on this very page. Perhaps, as a veteran editor you will at least tell me what to do about an editor who edit wars and refuses to discuss on the talk page. Then I'll know what to do about your edit warring and refusing to discuss matters on the talk page.Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet very understandably does not attempt to engage you in discussion since you have made it very clear that you are totally unable to accept any consensus that goes against you. Now I'm off to do something worthwhile, like banging my head against a brick wall.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

LongTone, you rude comments are an ongoing problem. Please try acting like an adult. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, why are you still refusing to discuss your edits? This is not wikipedia policy. And posting warnings on my page that I must discuss edits while refusing to discuss them yourself is also a violation of policy which strongly suggests bad faith on your part. I will again revert your un-discussed edit in the hope that you will finally conform to policy and discuss this dispute. You really should explain why you think the disputed claims should be presented as fact in the lede, and why you feel that the lede should also contradict the reliable source it uses as a reference.

Discussion in these cases is needed to build an encyclopedia. You are here to improve wikipedia, aren't you?Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a change to the lead. The lead needs to summarise the key sourced points in the body of the article. The article is reliably sourced on this point so unless the body content changes the lead should reflect that. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Changes to lead

There is a clear consensus to remove the weasel words "in some accounts". Cunard (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have opened a RfC to seek consensus regarding a particular aspect of this article. In the lead, the sentence "He is credited with a powered hop of 11 metres (36 feet) made on March 18, 1906 and he later claimed a powered hop of 24 metres (79 feet)" is being disputed an alternative position "He is credited in some accounts with a powered hop of 11 metres (36 feet) made on March 18, 1906 and he later claimed a powered hop of 24 metres (79 feet)" is being put. There is detailed discussion on this point and outside input is requested. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Remove weasel words "in some accounts" per policy. If there is a credible conflicting account, report it. Why is this even a question? ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Remove "some accounts" because by far the majority of accounts give Vuia credit. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet do you know why the RfC template I have added twice now is being removed by a bot? Flat Out talk to me 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me try putting up the RfC template, to see what happens. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Remove. The point has already been made many times and at length, but Ion Nemes refeuses to accept it.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been no detailed discussion. This is well shown by the gross misapprehensions posted here:

ScrapIron, try reading a link when you post it. There is no ban on such wording when provided by a reliable source, or when used to show the meaning and intent of a reliable source. A reliable source, like the one posted here as footnote 2, is allowed to use whatever wording they see fit. "according to some reports" is the exact wording of this reliable source. It is posted, and in the body of the article we have Flight magazine also saying that vuia didn't fly until Oct 8.

LungTone, the only points I've seen you make here are: 1: It is weasel worded (already dealt with above). 2: That you dont know of any sources that deny his march 18 claim. This is just silly. Obviously your personal lack of knowledge of subject in question is not germane.

Binksternet, You claim that the majority of sources give him credit is something you have refused to discuss at any time here. I'm sure that you may have done considerable independent research to determine this, but unless you are a reliable source you are not supposed to do so. Even if you were a reliable source so that your assertions could be accepted here, this would not obviate the fact that Mola's article does not in any way contradict the claims for that march 18th hop. It just points out that only some reports are the basis for those stories. Your refusal to discuss these questions violates wikipedia policy on editing disputes. Why do you continue to refuse to discuss these things? And why do you keep posting warnings that I must discuss my edits when you refuse to discuss them? I would also like to know why your only posts here during this dispute have been extraneous matter with no relevance whatsoever to the dispute under discussion.

I will now change the lede to match the exact wording of the footnote posted there (Mola's Smithsonian article). Which is further supported by A flight magazine reference farther down the page which says he didn't achieve any flights until October 8. If you have some objection to these sources please discuss them here instead of edit warring.Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I have come to this page from the RfC notice I received yesterday. I have read the article and all of this page. First, because Nemes has just stated he is going to change the lede while this is still going on, I am not sure which alternative is positive or negative. An article should never be edited during a dispute resolution activity. You have asked for help, editors are giving their time, respect that and wait for it to be closed. I hope that hasn't happened here.

Now, let me discuss the article content. Based on the sources given, these things seem true.

• His hops were not officially documented, we're not sustained flight, but are generally accepted as true.
• The claim about first to take off on wheels unassisted is accepted.

The lede is not the place to deal with controversy. I think the article as it is now is fine. It states what he did in the lede and gives details in the documentation section. I think the wording "he later claimed" could be removed from the lede with no problem and left to the later section. I do not think " in some accounts" or any other weak wording should be in the lede without significant sources saying that his hops are doubted or not believed by current aviation historians, not just that they were undocumented. This article is about a historical person. If he is viewed differently during his life that would be a topic for a different section of the article.Probing Mind (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I too have come to this page from the RfC notice and I have nothing to add to Probing Mind's contribution. I reckon it is spot on and non-partisan to boot. JonRichfield (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Remove weasel words. Only one editor wants them retained, and his arguments are thoroughly unconvincing. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Nemes's entire position is that he wants the words "according to some reports" in because he has a cite for that exact wording. Essentially, the source is poorly phrased. There is no substantive argument at all.TheLongTone (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Remove weasel words. Weasel words are weasel words, regardless of whether they're included in a source. Per TheLongTone's comments, a poorly worded source does not necessitate a poorly worded article. I'll also echo that editing the contested portion of an article during an RFC is just not cool. Don't do it. Arathald (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Propose Close - looks like we have consensus. Does anyone object to me closing the RfC? Flat Out talk to me 03:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC Discussion CLOSED Flat Out talk to me 03:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrigth Brothers flight vs. Vuia Hop?

If the Wright Brothers' or Bleriot's first flights are called "flight", Vuia's flight with its independent takeoff should be also called a flight as well. The Wrights crashed because of instability, Bleriot crashed in 6 meters, Vuia crashed because of the engine dying. In this case "Powered Hop" are weasel words,and using a different vocabulary and words for describing similar achievements made by other pilots strictly violates the Neutral point of view--Florinbaiduc (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2016

• "Flying" 11 meters and 24 meters at very low altitude, as Vuia did in 1906, isn't flight, but "powered hops", just like the Wright brother's first attempts in 1903 (57 and 63 meters) strictly speaking were, but the Wright brothers also flew several kilometers along a circular course in 1904, so there's no doubt about the Wright brothers having achieved true flight long before Vuia's "hops". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As long as the other similar achievements (first flights) are described by flying in the Wikipedia (see Bleriot, Wright brothers, etc), this also is described by flying. Strictly speaking, we should modify all articles describing first flights of a few meters and replace them with "powered hops" (good luck with that!) or leave Vuia's flights also as flights. Florinbaiduc (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Florinbaiduc: The Wright brothers flew 260 meters in the fourth flight on their first day in 1903 and Santos-Dumont flew 220 meters in 1906, so don't compare Traian Vuia, and his only proven hop, of 11 meters (the 24 meter one is just a claim made by Vuia, and not proven), to pioneers like the Wright brothers and Santos-Dumont. And Vuia rightfully isn't known for his first flight attempt but for being the first to put wheels on an aircraft. As for Louis Blériot he isn't known for his first miserable attempts but for being the first to cross the English Channel in an aeroplane, so he doesn't belong in this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• There is a difference: a 'flight' lifts itself in the air, travels forward and allows some degree of control (although it may be catapult launched); a 'powered hop' though need do no more than achieve lift. Traian Vuia managed to hop, but not fly (and was a couple of years after the Wrights). He did manage to lift the aircraft off the ground though, without requiring an external catapult - that much was novel. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you add enough power, a barn door can complete an aerial hop. Gibbs-Smith makes this exact observation in his discussion of early aerial pioneering efforts versus the Wright brothers. The point is the Wright brothers made an aircraft which was powerful enough and controllable enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Excuse me?! The Wright Brother's aircraft COULD NOT take off by itself. So that's it for the "powerful enough" claim. We could argue exactly the same way that it was not able to sustain flight in the very first flight, slowly losing the energy given by the catapult, until is lands.Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"If you add enough power, a barn door can complete an aerial hop" - I you have enough power a barndoor can fly around the globe, so how is this relevant? Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• All the discussion is irrelevant in the context. I am all for naming all flights shorter than X meters "Power Hops" - as they probably are, but then all should be renamed as such (including Bleriot's and Wright's first flights). As long as a standard definition of "Power Hops" do not exists, and the word "flight" is used on similar achievements (very short lifts of the ground), naming only Vuia's flight powered hop is against the Neutral point of view. Unless my arguments written here are countered, the wording should be "flight". We know that Vuia crashed because his engine breaks down and dies (described in his letters in Romanian somewhere), so theoretically he was sustaining the flight until the point of the crash anyway. I really DON'T want to repeat myself on this topic... "but not fly" definition of flying is not distance dependent, is simply traveling through air. From Wikipedia :) "Flight is the process by which an object moves, through an atmosphere (the air in the case of earth) or beyond it (as in the case of spaceflight) without direct support from any surface." - I see no reference to the distance in the definition here, and "Power Hop" is nowhere explained...Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we can not argue any of that, and claiming that it violates WP:NPOV is outright silly. The Wright brothers made four controlled flights already on their first day in 1903, the first one being 57 meters and the last one 260 meters, while the longest powered hop that Traian Vuia ever achieved was 11 meters, and even that is doubted by many (he also made a couple of hops of 4-5 meters, while the 24 m was a totally unproven claim made later by Vuia). And, as Binksternet wrote, even a barn door can be made to do a powered hop if you put enough power on it. Vuia's only lasting contribution to airplanes was putting wheels on his contraption, but it wasn't controllable, and it did not fly, all it was capable of was making a few very short powered hops. And Vuia obviously quickly realised that his contraption would never be able to fly, since he stopped working on it right after having failed in his attempts to get it into the air... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Florin, you are edit-warring over this. Even if you were factually correct, that is still a behaviour that we do not accept.

Find some WP:RS reliable sources that describe this as a "flight" if you want to go further, but simply edit-warring with other editors will just have you blocked again. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I loathe the use of the word 'hop' in the context of early flight, but its a generally used term and whatever word one uses the facts remain the same. And there was nothing novel about Vuia's unassisted lift off.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Who else was achieving unassisted take-off by this point? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Although I feel completely ridiculous at this point (I shouldn't have to prove something as obvious as an action easily described as "flight" by Wikipedia itself), here is a source (found in the bibliography of this very article) describing the first flight as flight, and Vuia's further's flight: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200368.html

At this point, as you have reversed it to power-hop (trying obviously to prove he did not fly, although he was the first to ever take off exclusively with his onboard power, and what he did corresponds 100% to the definition of flight), I will be forced to ask for third party mediation. "Power hop" , as a lesser term than "flight", is not generally used, as you claim here, I can find tens of examples within Wikipedia itself describing very short flights for what they are, flights. Therefore you do violate the Neutral point of view. Florinbaiduc (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your Flight source gives, 'A short "hop" is recorded as having taken place on July 1st' Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

OMG!! If it wasn't clear (how can't it be, as you reverted my edits??) I'm talking about the text in the lead, and the flight from March 18. How is it described in my source? "After travelling some 150ft, the aeroplane gently left the ground, rose to a height of 3ft and flew on some 40 ft. The motor then suddenly stopped and the machine came down abruptly but evenly". This even landing even shows that the machine settled in a controlled flight, and his only issue was his engine's power. As much I know about flying, being a pilot myself... And I'm pretty sure he didn't claim "Hurray I did a POWER HOP!!!" for his second flight. If he "claimed" anything, it was certainly a "flight". Am I the only one relying on logic here? I am not native in English, but I can certainly recognise where a text doesn't make any sense, how can you not see that!

Florinbaiduc (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• With four wheels, the wheelbase of a small car and a height of only three feet at the top of the curve there's no other way for it to land than "evenly", i.e. on its wheels. Even cars without wings do that after a jump... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• This comment, unfortunately, only demonstrates how little you know about flying in general (which is sad, as you do edit aviation articles). I don't understand even what you try to claim here. A car launched on a ramp will fly longer than what the Wright Brothers have flown and land evenly. Vuia did take off on even ground, achieving LIFT under its own power(and that was the revolutionary part) and has flown for 11 meters before his engine died, causing him to crash (abruptly land). At this point, as you are ignoring all sources except those conveniently agreeing to your agenda, you are also in the violation of the Neutral point of view . Also, the text in English makes no sense, he certainly never "claimed a power hop", that's a logical fallacy. He claimed most certainly a flight. Who am I dealing with here, and why am I wasting my time like this?! Florinbaiduc (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I can support use of "flight" instead of "hop" in the lede. In the past, editors of this article have changed it to say that Vuia made the world's first powered, "self-sustained" or "autonomous" flight, and that is not accurate and would have to be reverted. Currently, the article uses "hop" in several places after the lede; that's also ok with me. One of the cited sources, Orna, writes in the lede of his Flight article that Vuia "made a free flight of some forty feet," and his article is sub-headlined: "Vuia's Powered Flights" That's good enough for me, and, I think, for Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I changed the text to correct the fallacy of claiming a powered hop (he most certainly claimed to have flown not to have powerehopped), and also added a reference describing his first flight as a flight not as a powered hop. I will mark as vandalism any further reverse of these edits wthout good reason.Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted you, since there's an ongoing discussion here, with no support for your edit. And please note what I wrote on your talk page about gaming the system by waiting until 24 hours have passed, and then starting the edit-war again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say there is "no support" for his edit, since I explicitly wrote that I can support it, based on the RS cited in the article. DonFB (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Too many references to Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard?

Taking this dubious (he studied aeronautics aaaaand paranormal activities) author's opinions as the letter of the law is a bad practice, and again, it violates the Neutral point of view. Unless other sources, confirming his claims and researches is found, his opinions are not to be considered definitive. Florinbaiduc (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Other very reliable aeronautics experts have acknowledged the expertise of Charles Gibbs-Smith. For instance, the Smithsonian selected him for the first Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History. The top-level peer admiration makes him a good source here. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that he was quite biased in his reports. Other sources contradict his "findings" quite often.Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Name names.TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

TheLongOne - basically the rest of the bibliography and references, all refer to his flights as FLIGHTS...Do your homework, don't ask others to do it for you!Florinbaiduc (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

So what findings are contradicted.???Dollar to a donut I have read a great deal more on this subject than you have.TheLongTone (talk)

All other sources call his flights "flights", not necessarily all in English. If you have read that much on this subject, you would have noticed that. As you haven't, it's obvious you haven't read as much as you claim. Isn't logic wonderful?Florinbaiduc (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Replace unclear "Power Hop" term with flight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The term is derogatorily used here, as for similar achievements from other pioneers the word flight is used, as it should be. For clarity, please all commenters mark your option either with Support or OpposeFlorinbaiduc (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support change:What Vuia achieved was a world first unassisted takeoff, followed by (admittedly short) flights, according to the definition of flying from Wikipedia.. Power Hop is nowhere clearly explained. Even the references at the end of the lead phrase where the term "power hop" is to be seen refer to it as flight. Other sources also refer to the achievements as flight. The second occurrence of power hop "he claimed a power hop..." is a logical fallacy - he claimed a flight, would not claim a power hop.Florinbaiduc (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose change; as has already been explained to Florinbaiduc here multiple times by multiple editors it's referred to as a "hop" in multiple reliable sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a factually incorrect. You haven't shown one reliable source referring to it as power hop. Even the references at the end of the lead phrase where the term "power hop" is to be seen refer to it as flight. You also erased my sources, where it was referred as flight. If he left the ground he was flying by definition. What is a power hop?Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It was never explained by anyone why a logical fallacy is admissible and perpetuated here. Florinbaiduc (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral The tug-of-war between "flight" and "hop" has been a recurring issue in various history and biography articles about early aviation. I do not oppose the use of "flight" in the Vuia article. Perhaps that's not the same as "support," but I believe the article can be equally fair with either word. If "flight" is used, it should be qualified by "short" or a statement of the actual or estimated distance, so the text will be fully informative.

Some editors oppose "flight" due to their apparent belief that the word gives too much credit to a particular inventor. I don't agree, but only with an important caveat. It is this: Most mainstream reliable sources give credit to the Wright Brothers for the first successful airplane flight, and Wikipedia articles should make that clear. Editors who prefer "flight" to "hop" usually want the inventor to whom "flight" applies to be credited with the first "unassisted" or "autonomous" or "self-sustaining" flight, ahead of the Wright Brothers. User Florinbaiduc has revealed such a preference in this Rfc, which he initiated. He says Vuia achieved "a world first unassisted takeoff." That is false, as judged by mainstream reliable sources virtually since the beginning of aviation. Many Romanian sources give Vuia credit as "first," but that is a minority view and can even be considered fringe. However, I agree with Florinbaiduc that the word "hop" does not have official status in the reliable sources about early aviation, nor am I aware of "multiple reliable sources" applying the word to Vuia, as User Thomas W. says. On the other hand, I don't agree with Florinbaiduc's reasoning that because Vuia did not use "hop," therefore Wikipedia cannot use it. If multiple reliable sources do use it, Wikipedia certainly can.

"Hop" in Wikipedia early aviation articles is, in my opinion, a rhetorical device used by editors who want to make clear that the inventor to whom it applies does not take precedence over the Wright Brothers. My opinion is that if an article does not falsely and explicitly assert that a particular inventor achieved the "first successful/unassisted/autonomous/self-sustained flight" before or after the Wright Brothers, or in some other way try to give credit for that achievement to the inventor, the use of "flight" when referring to that inventor's accomplishment is acceptable. I do not think that use of "flight" by itself can denote such improper credit to a non-Wright inventor. DonFB (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: by "First unassisted takeoff" it is meant, Vuia was the first one to prove that a machine heavier than air can take off the ground using its onboard power only. I think the Wright Brothers were never able to take of from a horizontal surface on engine power alone (correction please with facts, not opinions, if I`m wrong). They were always assisted by a catapult. There is no proof of anybody else doing this before Vuia. The phrasing:"He claimed a hop" is factually and structure-wise incorrect, he would have claimed a flight (if anything). Florinbaiduc (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Wright Brothers only started using the catapult when they started flying from Huffman Prairie.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I stand corrected. The did run along a rail and downhill, though, and did leave behind their landing gear. Wheather he was the first or not, is not the point I try to discuss though. I try to replace the unclear and tendentiously used "power hop" term, with "flight". Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem stems from Vuia's use of a carbonic acid engine. This relies on both a fuel and a pressurised working fluid. It gave more power than the Wright's low-powered ultra-lightweight petrol engine. He just didn't carry enough working fluid for a longer flight, and owing to the weight of its storage vessel, he couldn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly - in fact, it might well be that at that time there was no powerplant with a power/weight factor good enough for allowing a manned airplane to take off unassisted (certainly not one Vuia, lacking funding, could afford). Vuia solved this partially with his original motor, but the motor died midflight either due to fuel starvation or due to a mechanical defect. (as much we know from witness reports).Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Early aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith calls it a powered hop. He says claims to sustained flight should cover an air distance of 400 meters, and that shorter distances are not flights but hops. If the aircraft was never capable of sustained flight then it never flew. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

All unpowered gliders are incapable of sustaining flight by themselves. It doesn't mean that they never flew. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith is not the ultimate authority in these matters, and he is actually your only source. He is also very biased in his reporting. There are A LOT of other sources In French, Romanian and English calling his flights as FLIGHTS.Florinbaiduc (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you stop with the insults to Gibbs-Smith? His topic expertise was acknowledged by the Smithsonian – he was selected as the first scholar to fill the Lindbergh Chair. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. As above, a number of WP:RS history books refer to Vuia's efforts as a 'hop' or 'powered hop' rather than flights. The opposing view that these were flights could be mentioned in the article, but the lede should stay with hops. Two more sources using 'hop' terminology are Fred Howard’s Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers (2013) - Page 203 and Philip Jarrett’s Pioneer Aircraft: Early Aviation to 1914 (2002) - Page 123 2.Dialectric (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you come up with a less biased source? It is obvious that anyone working on a "Biography of the Wright Brothers", would be biased enough to consider the rest of the attempts as non-flights. All other sources and articles from that period consider his flights flights, and that should be written in the leda. Florinbaiduc (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It is important to understand that a Wikipedia Guideline says: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."You will not be able to exclude or dismiss a high quality source like the Howard book. The same tactic of dismissing biased sources could be used against the Romanian sources. The argument should be based on the number of reliable sources on each side of the issue, not whether some show bias. DonFB (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's how reliable sources, including Gibbs-Smith, describe it. There is a distinction worth drawing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sources state powered hop. I do not consider the term being used as derogatory.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above discussion regarding sources. There is nothing derogatory about it. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term used is "powered hop", not "power hop" as in the RfC; and it's not derogatory. Sources draw a distinction between "sustained flight" and "powered hop", and that what Vuia achieved was the latter. Maybe the distinction should be explained in a footnote. Maproom (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, until such time as power hop exists and can be clearly linked and defined. Since that is not the case, consider who the article is for. While historians of flight may make arcane distinctions based on distance or velocity or other aspects, these are issues that are clearly outside the scope of Triaian Vuia, but could be added to history of aviation or some suitable glossary page. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? A term can't be used unless there's already a WP article on it? Not even WP:NOTABILITY works that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, the sources clearly support using the term powered hop. Any reading that this is somehow derogatory and not simply a distinction in the level of sustainability or stability is being added by a reader. I'm also somewhat puzzled by the comment above: almost all historical accounts of aviation make a distinction between sustained flight and a powered hop. Just think if this same no-red-links "standard" had been implemented at the dawn of Wikipedia... Our dear encyclopedia would be brief indeed. Lizzius (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose "Hop" is no more of an unclear term than "flight", and not in context interchangeable with "flight", whether it appears in other publications or not; this is English, not technicalese. The article itself is in no way derogatory, but simply descriptive or narrative in the relevant context, and in reading it I for one never was in doubt about the (still non-derogatory) intent of the term. Conversely, to use the term "flight" in places where "hop" appears in the article, would indeed be decidedly POV, even misleadingly prejudiced. (In the discussion I add a comment.) JonRichfield (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Here are some sources that make the distinction between Vuia making a flight and Vuia making a powered hop. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• 1960 Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development. Gibbs-Smith describes how any attempted flight by an aircraft which was incapable of sustained, controlled flight should be classified not as flight but as a powered hop. He says a flight through 400 meters of air volume is a suitable yardstick by which to measure early flight experiments. Regarding Vuia specifically, he says on page 53 that Vuia's aircraft "was not successful, but made a number of short hop-flights during the year, the best being of 26 yards in August." He says Vuia's monoplane influenced Bleriot to abandon biplanes. He says on page 55 that Vuia's various experiments were unsuccessful, that he abandoned the experiments, "and ceased to play an important part in aviation."
• 1966 Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, The Invention of the Aeroplane, page 89. "The Vuia I made three take-offs at Montesson, on March 3rd, August 12th and 19th; its best, and last, hop covering 24 m..."
• 1987 Fred Howard, Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers, page 203. "...Trajan Vuia, a Hungarian living in Paris, made a hop of 80 feet."
• 2002 Philip Jarrett, Pioneer Aircraft: Early Aviation to 1914, page 123. "The first full-size conventional tractor monoplane was built by Trajan Vuia, a Paris-domiciled Transylvanian. First tested in March 1906, it was powered by a Serpollet carbonic acid gas motor and managed to achieve a number of hops."
• 1981 David Mondey, The Illustrated History of Aircraft. "...Trajan Vuia's machine (above) could only hop."
• 1969 Kenneth Munson, Pioneer Aircraft 1903–1914, page 173. "The Vuia Ibis was first flown at Issy on 6 October 1906, and eight days later made its best hop..."

• Comment There is a very good 2013 discussion ("Who's on first" by one Steve Cartwright (FAIK Steve Cartwright?)) at [1]. Its relevance to the RFC is firstly that it gives a good perspective on the confusion concerning HTA flight, that was prevalent around the end of the 19th century, especially among partisans (which makes nonsense of much of this argument against the term in context), adds some technical considerations that put the Wright claims into a far stronger category than the most strident competitors, and omits any mention of Vuia at all, no doubt because he was some 2 years behind the running by most criteria. This argument is a waste of our editors' time. Though I am not English, I cheerfully assert that the word "hop" means various things in plain English, both colloquial and technical, and in context is perfectly clear to anyone who has read anything about the history of powered HTA flight, or chased a chicken. I have no fish to fry here, because I have no connection to any of the nationalistic interests of the various claims or claimants, and sitting back with my bag of popcorn I find the distinction between "flight" and "hop" to be fairly clear, unambiguous, and relevant.JonRichfield (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is not my field, but the RFC has moved me to do a bit of online fossicking since writing the foregoing. There is a lot of material, not all of it worth serious attention, but I was impressed in context by the item at [2]. The dates and the scale and scope of the nature of the flights make nonsense of trying to compare any rival efforts with those of the Wrights at that time (1906). (Interesting and fortunate that the concept of a flight log had been so carefully established so early; I reckon that we owe the Wrights more than just a flying machine. :) ) Also, Florinbaiduc's quote "...the aeroplane gently left the ground, rose to a height of 3ft and flew on some 40 ft..." is self-defeating in any language. It demonstrates that the term "hop" actually flatters the feat, because it is a clear and vivid description of ground effect rather than free flight. English is not the only consideration at issue here and where s/he says: "Am I the only one relying on logic here? I am not native in English, but I can certainly recognise where a text doesn't make any sense, how can you not see that!" No, s/he is not the only one and not in any way generally relying on logic, as the foregoing demonstrates. And the appeal to language makes it none the more logical, whether English, Romanian, or American. Frankly, I consider this squabble an insult to the memory of a man of brilliance and courage. JonRichfield (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Folded wings picture

I would like to add "shown here with the wings folded" on the explanation of the Vuia II postcard (as soon the the page becomes editable). The plane looks strange in that photo, unless this clarification is given. Crocobauru (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2016

Folded wings picture I would like to add "shown here with the wings folded" on the explanation of the Vuia II postcard (as soon the the page becomes editable). The plane looks strange in that photo, unless this clarification is given. Crocobauru (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Crocobauru (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done no response, and seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Vuia's nationality

"...Trajan Vuia, a (sic) Hungarian living in Paris, made a hop of 80 feet." - well, that stands while talking about reliable sources. Now we know he's also unreliabe, not only biased.Florinbaiduc (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Florinbaiduc: Your nationalistic POV is shining through. You have to differentiate between ethnicity and nationality, going by ethnicity he was Romanian but going by nationality/citizenship, as is usually done, he was Hungarian (a citizen of the Kingdom of Hungary, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). The area where Traian Vuia was born in 1872 wasn't part of Romania, then existing only as a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, and didn't become part of Romania until after Vuia, by his own choice, became a French citizen in 1918, so describing him as Romanian is based on ethnicity only, not nationality. So what the lead of the article says about Vuia being a Romanian, with a link to the country of Romania, is totally wrong, it should say that he was an ethnically Romanian Hungarian, with a link to the Kingdom of Hungary... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:}}He had the Romanian Citizenship. Florinbaiduc (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Florinbaiduc: You'll have to prove that, through reliable sources, because I don't think anyone here is willing to take your word for it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

When did he gain Romanian citzenship? 1950, on his return? He could only have held that briefly, as he died in the same year.

When he was born, his birthplace was part of Austro-Hungary, not Romania. It didn't become Romanian until 1918, but Vuia took French citizenship at that time, not Romanian. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Well, among others he was very active politically, and was part of the Romanian official delegation to the peace conference in Paris 1922 (this is from his bibliography). We have to understand that the political situation during his times was extremely complex. Shortly put, he was born in the Austro-Hungarian empire from an ethnic Romanian family, and become a Romanian citizen when the country united. He was one of the architects of that Union, btw. His letters are in Romanian, I`m just translating here what I`m reading. Florinbaiduc (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Florinbaiduc: I'm not asking for your opinion and guesses (his presence at the peace conference in Paris in 1922 has a very logical explanation: he spoke both Romanian and French, and lived in Paris...), I'm asking for reliable sources. He was a Hungarian citizen by birth and became a French citizen by naturalisation, but sofar we haven't seen any sources supporting your claim that he was a Romanian citizen, and not a Hungarian one, neither at the time of his attempted flights nor later. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

Romania was "united" (Wallachia and Moldova) in 1859 and became independent in 1878. So Vuia was born after there was a recognisable Romanian state (although not yet independent) but he was born outside of it. There is no indication of him having Romanian citizenship at this time - he would have been a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and travelled to Paris as a student as such. Nor was it unusual for Romanian students to study in Paris at this time.

In 1918 he took French citizenship - because the French were quite generous at granting it at that time. I cannot say why he chose French over Romanian, but he's recorded as having done so. I don't know about his role as any sort of Romanian delegate, but it would not have been unusual for him to keep French citizenship whilst doing so: Romanian ties with France were close.

In 1950 he returned to Romania and was welcomed as something of a national hero. I have no knowledge of whether he accepted Romanian citizenship at that time and he died shortly afterwards.

Your reference to "uniting" must here be in relation to the union with Transylvania from 1918. Which changed Romania, but didn't change Vuia's citizenship retrospectively.

You have shown no source for any of the citizenship claims you make. It's possible he had such citizenship from 1950, but that would be so late and so short that it would be only a minor issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This is in France, specifically mentioning him as Romanian: http://www.aerosteles.net/78/montesson-vuia/2image42.jpg Florinbaiduc (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnically he was Romanian. But that plaque's no indication of citizenship (and when). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. I can show you a statue in London where it's claimed that Vladimir the Great was king of Ukraine, a country that didn't exist until a thousand years after Vladimir's death, so claims on plaques, statues and what-have-you don't prove anything... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, anyway, do both of you confuse nationality with citizenship? There is written Nationality (ethnic status), not Citizenship (legal status), and Vuia's was Romanian (regardless of his citizenship) . Do educate yourself about the political situation of the oppressed Romanian population in the occupied regions of Banat and Transilvania. Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand nationality: it's a vague concept and is used differently by different governments, and even changes over times. I don't know if Romania limited nationality to just full citizens or if (like many countries) it recognised a Romanian nationality without a full citizenship too.

Vuia can show a Romanian ethnicity (which is different again) and a French citizenship from 1918. We're waiting for you to show WP:RS for either Romanian nationality (and by what standard) or Romanian citizenship. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, so now you've changed your comment and you're totally confused by mixing ethnicity in with it, which is not the same thing as nationality. Nationality is defined by nations, however nations feel fit. Sometimes they feel expansionist and create concepts of "Volksdeutsch" to draw in more national subject by ethnicity. But they are not the same concept. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. The Nationality is defined by the ethnicity (again, please read about nationality vs citizenship), and the citizenship is the legal status. Vuia`s nationality was Romanian, given his Romanian family and ethnicity. He had at least the French Citizenship - that does not make him a French National any more than he was a Romanian one. Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a load of rubbish, nationality is most definitely not defined by ethnicity. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You know, Tom,I, as a "beginner" editor, don't allow myself to teach you but ask you to teach yourself about something you don`t understand. If that doesn`t work, I can try to help you. So please read this and then come and comment. You do have to understand that he was born in an occupied territory, from a Romanian family, and was very active politically supporting the union of that territory (Banat) back to Romania. That, in itself makes him a Romanian national. It is a disgrace to call his natinoality Hungarian, the same as calling his flights "hops", he would have hated you for both: http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-nationality-and-citizenship.html Florinbaiduc (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Florinbaiduc: Your English skills may not be good enough for you to understand it, but the page you linked to says this "The nationality of a person indicates his/her place or country of birth" several times, although slightly rephrased in some places, and Traian Vuia was born in the Kingdom of Hungary, not in Romania (and AFAIK never lived in Romania, or ever became a Romanian citizen). The rest of that page is very simplified, and written from a US perspective, ignoring the fact that many/most countries in Europe have people of different ethnicites living natively (since many generations) within their borders, people whose nationality is that of the country, i.e. political entity, they were born in, regardless of their ethnicity, and not matching the definition of nationality and ethnicity used here on Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:His birthplace was an occupied territory, populated in a very large percentage by Romanian-speaking people. While being in the Kingdom of Hungary this does not make him a Hungarian National (eventually a Hungarian citizen), and he deffinitely did not have two nationalitites (Hungarian AND French, that is pure BS) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary#/media/File:Hungarians_in_Hungary_%281890%29.png He, himself, very strongly identified himself with the ideals of a united Romania, something no Hungarian national of that time would do. I will report this as vandalism. Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's another load of rubbish from you. You have been asked repeatedly to provide reliable sources for your claim that Traian Vuia was a Romanian national/citizen, but all you've come up with is an image of a plaque somewhere in France describing him as Romanian (which can refer to both ethnicity and nationality, BTW...), so you obviously don't have any reliable sources for your claim. Instead you're now making silly claims about him being born in an "occupied territory" and him "strongly identifying himself with a united Romania", as if that would magically make him a Romanian national. Well it doesn't, Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and reverting unsourced edits is not vandalism. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, educate yourself about citizenship, nationality and the history of Europe first. It is pointless to discuss this, and you just try to justify to yourself vandalizing this page. You don't have proof he wasn't a Romanian national yourself. Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I most probably know more about both the history of Europe and the rest of it than you do, and unlike you I don't see things through a nationalistically coloured filter. You're pushing nationalistic POV here, instead of editing from a neutral point of view as required by Wikipedia's rules, and continuing to do so will no doubt eventually get you blocked. Just like countless other nationalistic POV-pushers before you... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

At this point you and the other editor are defacing this page, and not contributing to it, by the very definition committing vandalism. Please be informed that all other pages in other languages refer to him as Romanian.. Florinbaiduc (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the talk here looks/sounds like original research or synthesis or personal opinions about ethnicity, citizenship, nationality. Editors should pay attention to what the sources say, instead of offering their personal opinions on such subtle distinctions. The sources used in this article which give information about Vuia's origin refer to him as "Romanian" (not "French" or "Hungarian"). As we all know, the article should summarize information from sources, not from personal opinions. DonFB (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Absent new information here showing that most or even a mere majority of sources give Vuia a nationality other than Romanian, I will change to "Romanian." DonFB (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to you providing the WP:RS to support such a change. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

They're in the article already. Please read. Or show which sources state "French/Hungarian." DonFB (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@DonFB: You have to differentiate between nationality and ethnicity, and since "Romanian" can refer to both nationality and ethnicity we can't go by what the sources say, but have to go by place of birth and what sources say about changes in citizenship (that Vuia became a naturalised French citizen is sourced), just like in a very large number of other biographies here. And Vuia was born in the Kingdom of Hungary, in an ethnically mixed area that had been part of Austria-Hungary for hundreds of years and didn't become part of Romania until Vuia was 46 years old, had lived in France for 16 years and had become a French citizen. Vuia was born in Hungary and spent the first 30 years of his life there, and then lived in France for the rest of his life, never having lived in Romania, there's also not a single source saying that he became a Romanian citizen later in life, so there's absolutely nothing that supports the claim in the infobox that his nationality was Romanian (see Template:Infobox_person, it's nationality and citizenship, not ethnicity, that should be included in the infobox), as you claim in your edit... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Let's begin with your statement: "we can't go by what the sources say." That's a rather revolutionary or maybe subversive sentiment in the context of Wikipedia. Yes, we have to judge the quality of sources so we can decide if they are reliable and whether to summarize their contents. But I beg to differ with your formulation, just quoted. The recent phrasing, "an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor..." is not clear, and I noticed in the conversation here that editors were endeavoring to explain to each other what it meant, and that its intent depended on the strategic placement of a comma. Not a recipe for clarity for readers, and a styling that bears no relationship to anything said by the sources.

No source I have ever seen describes him as "a French inventor" or "a Hungarian/French inventor" or "an ethnically Romanian, Hungarian inventor." All the sources I have seen, with the possible exception of the Howard book, identify him straightforwardly and unequivocally as "Romanian," unhyphenated. This article certainly should tell readers, as it does, that he became a French citizen. This article should also include information, as it does, about the status of his place of birth, whether in the body, footnotes, infobox or any combination. The article should not torture the lede's description of his identity, as it briefly did, in contradiction of the language in virtually all reliable sources. I am open, and hope other editors will be, to changing, adding or subtracting parameters in the infobox in a way that can resolve this issue. DonFB (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnically he's Romanian and always was. But WP makes a distinction that most sources don't make, between nationality (most obviously) and potentially citizenship and ethnicity as well. {{Infobox person}} includes |nationality=, |citizenship= and |ethnicity= separately. Since May 2016, Ethnicity has gone altogether (again): WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes. I see this as a bad move: a local response to problems in one article led to this being removed site-wide, when it is an important and appropriate clarification in some articles, such as this. It's a problem omitting it in Johnny Adair (Ulster Protestant Unionist), Richard Trevithick (Cornish), Charles Algernon Parsons (Anglo-Irish), this article, and a number of others.

So WP has these characteristics:

• Nationality is the prime categorization
• Ethnicity is not encouraged and is prevented in infoboxes.
• If ethnicity is to be covered, then that's restricted to prose in the body text.

Most sources give one value and do not distinguish between the three forms: he was ethnically Romanian, so he's described as "Romanian" as a broad general statement. But that is not a claim that he had Romanian nationality or citizenship.

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@DonFB: If it's not clear what is meant by a statement in a source it cannot be used as a source for that statement. "Romanian" is ambiguous since it can refer to both nationality and ethnicity, a difference that in normal daily use might not matter, but does matter here, since Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between nationality and ethnicity (see Andy Dingley's post above). Your claim that we must use "Romanian" as nationality because some (not all...) sources say he was "Romanian" is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, since you have no way of knowing if the source refers to Vuia's nationality or ethnicity, which is why it's more correct to use his place of birth (which there is no doubt about) as source for his nationality... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think it would do to call him "Hungarian," when dozens of sources say he was "Romanian." Frankly, that would be silly. If sources do not say he was "Hungarian," neither can we. (He is also listed as "Romanian" in other Wikipedia articles, including a List of Romanians--natives of Romania. Would you like to change those also?)

I do not insist that the article explicitly say "Romanian nationality," but the article should not, on its own authority, contradict the unequivocal wording of so many sources by hyphenating him or wholesale changing his accepted identification. I have not seen any source that says whether he was formally an (Austro-) Hungarian citizen (have you?), but I have seen a source that says he requested his law degree be written in Latin, not Hungarian.

When considering how he is described in the article's lede and infobox, we should well note that Romania proudly hails him as a national hero and claims him as their own. I suggest that brief text can be added in either the body or a footnote explaining that he is virtually always described by published sources simply as "Romanian" regardless of the formal details of his citizenship and birthplace.

The article should explain the details of his birthplace and foreign citizenship, but should not overrule the many published sources that identify him. DonFB (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We're still waiting for even one source that shows his nationality to be Romanian.

In a context where his ethnicity was clearly Romanian and his birth citizenship and nationality was that of someone born within Austro-Hungary, then an unqualified source saying "Romanian" with no further specificity has to be assumed to be referring to his ethnicity (which is probably how he felt himself to be too). It is not a source for Romanian nationality unless it clearly states nationality. Quite possibly he received Romanian citizenship in 1950 and that might be sourceable.

You are repeatedly stating his nationality to be Romanian though. Yes, you "do insist" on this, you are overwriting other editors to force it in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The article lede is using the description of Vuia found in virtually all sources about him--a description which is identical to the ledes in dozens of other articles about notable Romanians, and by analogy, to the ledes for innumerable Hungarians, Czechs, Austrians, etc., where the term could mean either ethnicity or nationality. I would find it hard to believe that you could seriously propose calling him "(Austro-) Hungarian" in the face of a plethora of published sources that all use a different term and make no mention of your alternate term. In your argument just above, you freely assume that you know the formal "citizenship and nationality" of a man born in the century before last. Excuse the question, but have you seen his papers? In a controversial situation like this, you need more than a mere assumption; you would need a source. I have offered to accept a change to the contents of the infobox where "nationality" currently appears; that parameter need not be included. I have also suggested brief explanatory text for the article body or a note to clarify Vuia's status. Your turn: kindly respond to these suggestions for compromise or make a suggestion of your own. DonFB (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

He was born and brought up in Hungary. His nationality, for most of his life, was Hungarian. I suggest that the article should say "a Hungarian inventor of Romanian ethnicity". It is unfortunate that the incorrect statement in the lede has been so widely copied. Maproom (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@DonFB: Thank you for "offering to accept a change", as if it was up to you to decide this. Traian Vuia is claimed to be a Romanian (and nothing else) in many places, including on many pages here on en-WP, because of being "adopted" by the communist regime in Romania in order to boost national self-esteem, and generations of Romanians have since been told in school and official documents that Vuia was a Romanian national, just like Romanians for generations have been told in school and official documents (and for the same reason: to boost national self-esteem) that Henri Coanda invented the jet engine in 1910 (which is a totally false and totally ridiculuos claim, that is still being officially propagated in Romania...). But that doesn't make his real life nationality Romanian, as you have been told multiple times. With thorough explanations for why. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Gesundheit. Interesting narrative and certainly offers an alternative look at the standard story. Of course, can only be useful for this conversation or the article if sourced. The sources now describe him as Romanian. Wikipedia summarizes the content of reliable sources. Whether Romanian was his "real life nationality," as you (not I) put it, is probably not a question this article can answer without more sourcing. I have made suggestions to work around the issue, rather than taking a route to a supposed answer by means of synthesis, which I believe you're offering. I wonder if you are willing to accept a change I suggested to not include Nationality in the infobox, and to add brief clarifying text in the body or a note. DonFB (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: I think it is synthesis to use "Hungarian," when no sources, with one exception perhaps, use that term, and virtually all other sources use a different term. I'm curious to know your justification in the face of that contradiction and the absence of published supporting RS. DonFB (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

People born in Hungary are Hungarians. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The article states (admittedly without a source) that he was born in Surducul-Mic, which was then in Hungary. It cites a source which states that he graduated from a college in Lugoj, then in Hungary, and then studied in Budapest, then (and now) in Hungary. Is there really any doubt about this? Maproom (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt about the locations, but it is original thought to use a term that contradicts language in the bulk of published information about him. DonFB (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict anything, since neither you nor anyone else know for certain if "Romanian" in the sources refers to Vuia's nationality or his ethnicity, you interpret it as referring to his nationality, while others may with equal right interpret it as referring to his ethnicity. And so far it's 3 to 1 in favour of the latter interpretation... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right, we don't have certainty about the interpretation, but that's not an excuse to roll the dice and assume you'll get lucky using completely different unsourced terminology and hope it won't contradict the actual meaning and constitute original thought. Sure, when I look at "Romanian" and "Hungarian," I see a contradiction. Third request: any comments on my suggestions? If you don't carve notches in my flesh while you're keeping score, I'm good. DonFB (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

So you're claiming that anyone born in Timiș County since 1859 should be described as Romanian in nationality, rather than Hungarian? Will you be changing Béla Bartók too? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already offered to compromise on the issue of nationality, as you presumably have seen in my various comments above. I have repeatedly asked you and Thomas W. to respond to my suggestions, and so far neither of you has. If you value true collaboration, kindly respond to my suggestions, so we can move forward constructively after the article protection expires. DonFB (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your offer of a "compromise" (i.e. not stating any nationality at all, just his ethnicity, Romanian...) has been noted, but rejected. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to omit nationality from the infobox, as it's too complicated for the infobox to cope with it. We should still describe it in the prose, in full detail (which includes the fact this was part of Austro-Hungary at the time, not Romania). His ethnicity should also be described and I'd add that to the infobox too, even though the infobox won't currently process that (it accepts the parameter, then ignores it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Good, we're making progress. I agree that the issue should be described in the prose (essentially my suggestion from earlier). My position is that it is incorrect to flatly describe his nationality as "Hungarian" because sources, except Fred Howard, don't support that. The first sentence of the Education/career section already mentions the status of his birthplace, but I'm amenable to some sort of tweaking, if that's what you want. I have seen a source that describes him as "Transylvanian" and another source that mentions both him and (your favorite composer) Bartok in the same sentence, describing Vuia as "born in Banat" and "Bela Bartok, the Hungarian composer," studiously avoiding calling Vuia Hungarian. I believe we can work out mutually acceptable wording, and I'm glad you're agreeable to omitting Nationality from the infobox. DonFB (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How could anyone born in Bujoru in 1872 not have Hungarian nationality? That might be possible (I have no idea how) but it is "the exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources" that WP:RS specifically requires a strong source for. I have seen no RS claiming his Romanian nationality, I have only seen sources claiming his Romanianness in a vague unqualified manner, far more likely related to his ethnicity. Given how exceptional such a claim would be in 1872, that's not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. What "exceptional claim" are you talking about? DonFB (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The claim that anyone (specifically, Traian Vuia) born in Bujoru in 1872 could not have had Hungarian nationality (specifically, Romanian instead). That is an exceptional claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It definitely is an exceptional claim, which is why I have repeatedly asked for reliable sources for Vuia being a Romanian citizen/national... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not recommending that Wikipedia should make a claim that he was not a Hungarian national. I am saying that Wikipedia should not claim that he was a Hungarian national. A claim that he was "Hungarian," which you want to make, would be exceptional, because that word is not used in virtually all of the sources which describe him. A different word is used in almost every source. As I've already said, I am not arguing that Wikipedia must say his "nationality" was Romanian. That's why I proposed omitting Nationality from the infobox, an idea I'm glad Andy has agreed to.

Wikipedia should describe the circumstances of his birth and life, but it is not compelled to use terminology about him which does not appear in the sources. Using such a term without supporting sources, and in contradiction of nearly all sources, which use a different term, is a case of synthesis.

Here, I will offer a brief argument that strays from strict discussion of Wikipedia rules. Applying the word "Hungarian" to him would clearly contradict his known patriotic identification with the nation of Romania, and with Romania's treatment of him as a national hero. That his birthplace (since named for him) is now in Romania also serves to invalidate the idea that he should be called "Hungarian." DonFB (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lord Byron is a national hero in Greece, but that no more makes him a Greek than Che Guevera was Cuban. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And, pardon my frankness, those arguments are total rubbish. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not part of the Romanian propaganda machine. Being a Romanian national hero, "patriotic identification with the nation of Romania" (which we have seen no sources for...), and his birthplace now being in Romania, and having been renamed for him, is totally irrelevant. You're beginning to sound more and more like Florinbaiduc (now renamed VladtheDepaler), opposing mentioning Vuia's true nationality only because of wanting him to be Romanian, in order to boost Romanian national self-esteem. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You both took the easy way out and commented only on my not-strictly-policy argument. Andy, despite your agreement to omit Nationality from the infobox, are you insisting that the prose describe him as "Hungarian"? Since only one known source describes him that way, and dozens of others do not, what source-based/policy-based argument do you make for your exceptional claim? DonFB (talk)

@Thomas.W: Tom, you should confine your arguments to the subject matter, not who you think someone sounds like. DonFB (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If you think you know his "true" nationality, show me some sources. You've both complained about sourcing for "Romanian." You've both offered nothing source-wise for "Hungarian." DonFB (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not the most futile waste of bandwidth I have seen in WP talk pages yet, but it would earn an honourable mention with flying colours. Don trying to define nationality and ethnicity to suit his own taste, in the face of anything any country would accept during the last few centuries, and the others omitting to point out that neither of those is a fundamental attribute, so that it hardly matters a damn how he defines it. Personally I couldn't care a monkey's, but I got hypnotised by the sheer spectacle of the teetering walls of text. Trying to do more in the article or box than observing what his nationality was when he was born, and how it changed during his lifetime, if ever it did, would be futile. And it wouldn't even change his ground effect vehicle into anything with functional prospects or an ornament of Romanian history, so have fun folks, I'm outta here... JonRichfield (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You haven't read the discussion very carefully (perhaps because of your contempt for it). I'm not trying to define anything. I'm pointing out that Wikipedia should not be defining something for which the sources do not offer sufficient clarity. DonFB (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

info strada traianvulea

?? 79.114.12.187 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

de ce se numeste asa 79.114.12.187 (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)