Talk:Paragliding/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fork of Paragliding (sport)

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

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

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

Everybody stop it now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatalities

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

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

Proposed Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert to prior version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback changes since unlock and relock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work for consensus on the paths of evolution of paragliding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Working on Wiki links for the article with consensus.

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

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

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

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

A reference supporting mainstream view of definition and safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are paragliders hang gliders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full protection

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

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

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

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

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

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