Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Traian Vuia's flight described ad "Power Hops" although the wording is not used in similar achievements from other pioneers of flight
What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
The wording used for his first flights is "Power Hops" although his actions are clearly described as flight by Wikipedia itself. "Power Hops" is not never defined, and similar achievements from other pioneer of flight are correctly described as "flight". In this case "Power Hops" are a lesser term, becoming Weasel words, and the other authors, by ignoring other sources describing his flights as "flights" clearly ignore the NPOV
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Agree. He has flown by the very definition of flight. Some other editors try to invent other terms for his achievements, such as "power hop", not explained anywhere, and not used for similar achievements of other pioneers. My proposal to change the text is accurate and it was documented and properly referenced. The "claimed a powered hop" passage is a logical fallacy, and the correction would not require a discussion in a group of normal persons. He would have never claimed "I have powerhopped, yuhuuu!!!". He would have claimed "I have flown". Having to ask for a mediation on these points is an insult to intelligence and logic. Florinbaiduc (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. I see no point in this, since it's not a dispute between two editors, but one editor, with an exaggerated view of Vuia's achievements, against everyone else. See article talk. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. We have sources, we're following them. Florin added a new source to the talk: page today and that used "hop" too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from the article's bibliograpy. Please read the article completely before commenting on it and deciding it's new (for you maybe)!. The source mentiones "flight" for the flights under discussion. The second mention of "power hop" is a complete logical fallacy, Vuia neven claimed a "power hop", he claimed a flight. At this point the article has serious wording and structure issues. Florinbaiduc (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article regularly comes under the attention of activists from two polar extremes – Vuia's flight was a significant step in aeronautics (it wasn't), or Vuia was a fake (he wasn't). Our friend Florinbaiduc is in the first extreme. Opposing him is a group of veteran editors who have been holding the line at a very well-sourced centrist position, which is what we will continue to do. I see no reason to give serious consideration to either of the extreme positions, as they are not represented in the mainstream aeronautics literature. So we don't need to entertain the request for a moderator. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet:Could you kindly please refrain from making false claims about what I said? To say that he has flown (you just said it here), by the definition of flight is not a "polar extreme". I do not have to demonstrate that he has flown, you have to demonstrate that he has not flown. You do allow yourself to call me an extremist, and describe yourself as a "veteran editor", but your comments demonstrate little knowledge of the subject of aviation you try to edit. You constantly avoided the discussion, and you never presented any valid counterarguments to what I wrote (except "we, the heroic veterans don't agree, and that's that"). Florinbaiduc (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've added myself to this Mediation. In the past, editors have attempted to give Vuia credit for the world's first manned, powered, "autonomous" flight, and those edits have been reverted, because that assertion is not supported by mainstream sources. In the case now under mediation, I do not see such an extreme and false assertion by Florinbaiduc. His proposed revision is more measured. As I mentioned on the Talk page, the word "flight" is supported by a cited reliable source, a Flight magazine article by Bernard Orna. Personally, I do not object to "hop," but neither do I see justification for the doctrinaire exclusion of the word "flight" when describing Vuia's efforts. I think the Orna citation is sufficient to justifiy use of "flight," and I'm not aware of sources that debunk use of that word for Vuia's work (though "sustained flight" is clearly not supported), nor have I seen sources that mandate use of the word "hop." DonFB (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #5, "A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation." For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
