Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 14 March 2015

Romania Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Aviation: Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aerospace biography project.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 18, 2012 and March 18, 2014.

First

" built the world's first self-propelling heavier-than-air aircraft."

Woha there nelly - let's just say that fact is just a little disputed. I'll leave it up to someone else to actually edit since I don't really know what i'm doing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.35.35 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of a couple of guys named Wilbur and Orville?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.79.14.15 (talk • contribs)

'Yeah, no kidding. Ever heard of a couple of guys named Wilbur and Orville?'

Those guys used a catapult to take off. Read more carefully next time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adr2ian (talk • contribs)

They often used a catapult, but their first flights were accomplished without one. Why don't you try reading more carefully next time! Besides, Vuia's miserable excuse for a flight was far less than had been achieved by Jatho, Ader, and Kress years earlier!Romanianlies (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Traian Vuia is not as popular as Wright brothers? He made first flight by a heavier-than-air, self-propelled aircraft, without the aid of external takeoff mechanisms, the Discovery chanel dosn't even mention his name in "Flight history" documentary, it is not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.56.2 (talk • contribs)

Look, if you have a point to make, why not try and write it in proper English, using proper WP formatting, and then sign (use 4 ~'s). Now, to your question (if there is indeed a question in there), I refer you to the discussion from First flying machine:

Orville & Wilbur Wright, United States — December 17 1903

First controlled, sustained heavier than air flight: in the day's fourth flight, Wilbur Wright flew 279 meters (852 ft) in 59 seconds. First three flights were approximately 120, 175, and 200 ft, respectively. The Wrights were the first to fully and accurately describe all the requirements for controlled, powered flight and put them into use in an aircraft that took off from a rail with the help of a headwind to gain sufficient airspeed to fly.

Traian Vuia, Romania — March 18 1906

First flight by a heavier-than-air, self-propelled aircraft, without the aid of external takeoff mechanisms, such as rail or catapult. Many newspapers in France, the US, and the United Kingdom wrote about the first man to fly with a heavier-than-air machine with its own take off systems, propulsion units and landing gear. The thing that has been emphasized about Vuia's achievement is that his machine was able to take off on a flat surface "only by on-board means", without any "outside assistance", be it an incline, rails, a catapult, etc.

All clear, now? Turgidson 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a point on why should Vuia's flight be considered a world first: He didn't used any external help or measures for taking of. Remember, one could trow a rock or a glider, or even a motorized glider or whatever from a catapult, and it could fly for many miles (depending on many external factors) but I wouldn't considered it "self propelled" flight, for that you need the thing to be able to takeoff and land by it's own means, and that was what Vuia achieved, and as far as we know now, this was a world's first. No one said that the Wrights weren't the first ones to fly, but Vuia could well be the first one to demonstrate that self-propelled flight of an heavier than air machine is possible (an idea heavily contested at that time as impossible and his flights were considered trickery by the "Academia"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.113.184.219 (talk • contribs) What you all fail to realize is that you're in WikiWorld now, where 1906 happens before 1903, and Wilbur...and Orville, too...are spelled Traian. Got it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.91.52 (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I cancelled "At the time Europe was aware but skeptical of the efforts of the Wright brothers who on December 17, 1903, had flown their Wright Flyer from level ground using a rail only to guide the wheeled truck that their Flyer rested on until take off was achieved. The Wrights had made sustained and controlled flights in a complete circuit by September 1904". The insert refers to some collective "Europe" lack of precise knwledge as opposed to "American"..., then jumps to Wright brothers just to contradict the previous reference. Moreover, it is self-controversial: the rail mentioned by the previous phrase is aknowledged, while "only to guide the wheeled truck" indicates that part of the take-off mechanism (the truck) was not lifted in air with the plane, which had a sled as landing gear and could not take off alone from a flat surface. The rail was downslope, which helped the takeoff, therefore not autonomous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not First

There are numerous others who flew before Vuia: Ader, Kress, Nyberg, Phillips, Jatho, Whitehead, Pearse, etc. Next time you check first flying machine try reading the whole article, not just the parts that agree with your assertions. Romaniantruths (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your idol Gibbs clearly contradict you here. And not just him. Wright brothers was first to flew, and Vuia was first to flew an heavy then air aircraft using just the onboard means and only the power of its engine

According to Britannica, he was the first to fly a monoplane, whereas the Wright Brothers flew a biplane. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith distinguishes between powered hops and controlled, sustained flight, and he labels Vuia "unsuccessful" because the two Vuia hops, one 12 m and the other 24 m, were not sustained. The World Book Encyclopedia of 1984 says "Traian Vuia, a Romanian inventor, built the first fullsized monoplane, but it could not fly." I assume they wrote this because Vuia never achieved controlled, sustained, practical flight in his early monoplane. Gibbs-Smith writes that Vuia abandoned his version 2 (bis) monoplane after testing it in mid-1906, "and ceased to play an important part in aviation." (Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1970). Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. p. 123.) Please see Talk:History of aviation#A general note on 'firsts', from Gibbs-Smith. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The term "HOP" (bounce, jump, leap, spring)is nothing but a denial of a first flight, given by someone without deep physics knowledge and with personal feelings taking over. It suggests a jump, such as for a machine pushing against ground or launched and does not describe the dynamics of weight and air resistance compensation. To take off, a plane needs more lift and drag than to maintain the flight; this is known by anybody who experienced a simple take off in a routine flight. To maintain a LAUNCHED FLIGHT is far easier. Independently on the conditions (wind which pushed the aircraft against a tree) or apparatus stability, as engine cut-off after a short while, taking off from flat surface and carying on the landing gear demonstrates a dynamics which solved FOR THE FIRST TIME the main problems and could have been prolonged indefinitely, if wind or engine failure did not occur. The autonomous flight was demonstrated. Not a long, performant one, but autonomous. Wright flights were longer and higher but ALLWAYS LAUNCHED on a slope, as documented by themselves, and, in addition, leaving the launching gear on the descendent RAMP. The Wright plane was not able (until 1908) to take off from flat surfaces and to carry the full machine (part of which, namely the gear, remained behind, as launching device). In this respect, the flight was nothing but a prolonged glide, an improvement over the previous 2000 Otto Lilienthal's ones, by adding an engine. The first "not lauched, not descendent-accelerated HOP", even for 2 cm lenght and 1 cm height, would represent the first autonomous, heavier than air FLIGHT, as it demonstrates a new STABLE, ASCENDENT dynamics. Ask the physicists on fields were comments are done by beginners. Don't give a damn on what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith defined, the dynamics is an OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT. There is no need to understand Thom theorem to reach such knowledge. Amateurs out. Point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.83.181 (talk • contribs) 20:02, September 22, 2014

Yes, the term "hop" is a denial of flight. A "hop" was achieved by many aviation pioneers, on many experimental machines. The point Gibbs-Smith is making is that any chunk of wood, metal and cloth can be thrown into the air by the application of enough power.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Wright brothers did not launch on a slope during their first flights. The issue of the unconnected launch undercarriage is one that does not stop the Wrights from being known as the first fliers. Of course, their Flyer was made with landing skids. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of European sources congratulate Vuia for being the first to fly without a catapult or other external means to aid the initial takeoff, but these people are mistaken about the Wright brothers in 1903 who did not use a catapult at that time. They used one for later flights, flights in Paris and elsewhere, to shorten the takeoff run. The Wright's 1903 flights were performed "under its own power and the pilot's proper control, from the level..." The level launching track or runway that the Flyer used to take off was no different in purpose than the smooth, level road Vuia used. One sure difference was that Vuia's monoplane carried its own wheels but the Wrights used a set of wheels that were shed by the aircraft when it lifted off. Another, of course, is the tractor monoplane configuration used by Vuia. But the argument that the Wrights used an inclined track are wrong; on 17 December 1903 they took off four times from level ground. One famous photo of a 8°50' (8.83°) inclined track is from 14 December when the wind was otherwise too low to take off, and Wilbur Wright took off going slightly downhill, assisted by gravity in the same way he was assisted by the wind. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

They aren't mistaken because of that, they are mistaken because numerous other men flew farther and higher than vuia before he did without ramps, or catapults. The whole ramp and catapult arguement comes from people who just have a bug up their butt about the Wrights, but know virtually nothing about the early history of aviation.Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted Unscourced edit

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

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

Controversial wording

The following text in this article is quite controversial:

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

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

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

I am challenging this text.

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

That is how Misplaced Pages works.

I believe the previous text was fair and accurate.

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

Just some very recent news trying to confirm the machines for moving the human through the air ( personally I will call it "sustained human flight") was at least invented by Leonardo Va Vinci many centuries ago, before Traian Vuia or Wright brothers constructed such machines ( So this video might prove the Vuia and the Wright brothers were just skillful constructors not the inventors of the machine for moving human through the air ). See the video for yourself:

[http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp]

So to PLEASE think twice when starting to edit this kind of pages and stop this bloody mess started by RomanianTruths in the Traian Vuia and Henri Coanda pages as well!!!! THANK YOU in advance Misplaced Pages Community! Let's goo back to the basics and copy without questions the information from trusted sources like Encyclopedia Britannica for instance! Lsorin (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a new suggestion:

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

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

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

perhaps there is something else to consider here as well. If reliable sources describe Jatho, Pearse, Phillips, Kress, or others as flying aircraft which from their descriptions, are "self-propelling self-taking-off heavier than air aircraft" farther, higher and earlier than Vuia, what are we to make of that? At some point the numerous earlier accepted flights must make it unacceptable to describe Vuia this way. Even if some book which would otherwise be accepted as a reliable source shows up Which makes this claim for Vuia. I don't think the pages for these other folks make any actual claim to being first(except the Ader page, and he probably deserves it from what I've read). Incidentally, if you're wondering about the odd wording of the Vuia claim, it seems that it 's qualifications were specifically crafted to exclude the Wrights(apparently they thought the Wrights only took off using a catapult). Some more elaborate claims which also say "without rails, skids etc" are either crafted in recognition of the fact that the Wrights didn't always use a catapult, or are meant to exclude Maxim(whose plane did break free of it's retraining rails but isn't usually described as flying, perhaps because he didn't describe the accident that way himself). I see that LSorin has altered this page again. I'll revert it pending further discussion. I hope this doesn't qualify as another xenophobic attack on my part, and I hope I haven't manipulated you into agreeing with me(another charge I've been seeing a lot lately in LSorin's posts).Romaniantruths (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding to your suggestion DonFB:

"......was a Romanian inventor who in 1906 made the earliest confirmed brief manned flights to take-off autonomously with a heavier than air powered flying machine, which he designed and built."

I propose to add a chapter all together to describe the plane itself. There are two full scale replicas as well. One which was presented and the last World Air Games were we can add a chapter regarding the things contested.

Another way: "March 18, 1906 Vuia, in his "Vuia No. 1", was the first person to take off from level ground by engine power alone in an untethered machine" . Hopefully you can trust it a as source. I found the link from . Is this a trusted source? --Lsorin (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW this was the version before Romaniantruths came in. --Lsorin (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

"The first airplane to take-off on the ground of Issy-les-Molineaux, was that of Traian Vuia, Romanian pioneer of the world's aviation." --Lsorin (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can notice "the first" is very clearly stated. That is the way I would really accept any entry with such statement containing "first", like I proposed above. Then we can add a full chapter with the doubts. --Lsorin (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This link as well is using the word "first".--Lsorin (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed, I added the statement to note that although it was not successful in flight, there was something to be said for its design. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, your own words: "there was something to be said for its design" ( to be translated ) is equal too: Flight magazine entry "first modern configuration", Gibbs-Smith entry "Vuia mono­plane - which ranks as the first full-size conventio­nally shaped monoplane in history". --Lsorin (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Consensus build-up

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

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

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

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

first monoplane?

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

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

according to the romanian academy library?

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

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

Gibb-Smith book

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

" was the first flight with a machine heavier than the air and was entirely powered only by its on board engine during all its evolution" - The Romanian Air Force . --Lsorin (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fifty years ago, on March 18, 1906, at Montesson near Paris, a small aeroplane made a free flight of some forty feet after leaving the ground entirely under its own power. It was the 'first heavier-than-air machine of the kind to do so." - Flight magazine, 30 March 1956

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

Very good documentation, Lsorin. The important issue in 1906 was whether a heavier than air (HTA) machine could take off on wheels (without incline or catapult). Vuia did it, but even though this additional source says he was "first" to do it, as you know, earlier claims for the same thing exist: for Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse (they all had wheels), maybe Watson. Possible wording: "It was the first well-documented unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven heavier than air flying machine with a wheeled undercarriage." The difference from Santos Dumont is that SD's flights had "official" witnesses from the Aero Club of France. With careful and correct wording, all these articles can live in harmony.DonFB (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! I agree with your entry. We can add a new section to add the other sources which claim that others like you listed (Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse) were firsts as well but not as well published as Vuia.--Lsorin (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I suggest we *not* add in stuff about all the other people. That's not what this article is for. With careful wording, we don't need to explain everyone else in all of these articles. It only causes arguments. I need to take a break, so I won't be revising the introduction right now. Obviously, you're free to do it. The sentence I suggested above needs to be preceded with an opening sentence that he was an inventor/pioneer who designed/built/flew 40 feet, etc....Then followed by the new sentence. DonFB (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I give a try now. Please check. I added the section as well there. We can add the reference as well with regards to Ader, Whitehead, Jatho and Pearse. I will leave the {POV-lead} untouched until we get more comments.

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

I agree that wheels are what made the machine different from the Wright Flyer. The wheels (and engine and sufficient smooth open space) are what enabled it to prove that it was possible to do something not known for certain to have been done before: take off without an assist or incline. Putting wheels on was not noteworthy, but taking off on them was/is. DonFB (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths add you concerns in the new sandbox. Otherwise I are going forever to edit, revert and re-edit the same stuff again and again. I think you are not questioning again the importance of Vuia's plane, with the consequence of being removed from Misplaced Pages! ( I still hope that your mind is still working to some extent and you are not a fanatic.

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

No DonFB, taking off without assist or an incline Is well-known to have been done before. The Wrights did it in front of witnesses and were photographed doing it repeatedly. And Lsorin, your threat to "forever edit, revert and re-edit" is not productive.Romaniantruths (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not with wheels. It seems trivial--and from our perspective now, it probably is--but that's the difference. That whole introductory sentence describes a feat which was different from what was---and still is, if we say "well-documented"---believed to have preceded it. If you only take a piece of the sentence and isolate it from the rest, you can make your point. But the sentence includes "wheeled undercarriage" as part of the qualifications for what Vuia did. That's why I can support it. There is another way of expressing his achievement that I can also support. This other way explains why Vuia's hop was (and is, to some people) such a big deal:

"Vuia's short flight proved to people at the time that it was possible for a manned, powered, heavier than air flying machine to make an unassisted takeoff from level ground."

The more I think about it, the more I think the article should make the point about what people knew/thought then. At the time, the Wright flights were severely questioned/doubted. That's why Vuia's flights (and Santos Dumont's for that matter) took on so much importance. Without opening a huge can of worms about who really flew first, the article can and should explain the importance of Vuia's flights in their historical context. DonFB (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree! I've checked carefully and fount not such a proof like horizontal take-off by Wrights, without an external device. Even the weels left

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

What's the proof that Vuia's hop proved anything to people? The sources I read say that the Wright doubters, who were appalled at the total failure of their own attempts to duplicate a Wright aircraft from incomplete sketches, continued much as before until 1908 when Wilbur Wright flew circles for them in France. It was 1908 that was the year of catalyst action in the aeronautical world, not 1906. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was influenced to make the suggestion after reading an article in Flight magazine from March 30, 1956. It's listed in the article Bibliography:

"Vuia's little monoplane set a pattern for aircraft to come and set the seal on the fact that a flying machine equipped with wheels could take off from the ground direct, and under the power of its engine alone."

It's likely, however, that Santos Dumont's flights had much more influence on the European aeronautical community. I don't agree, though, that Euro-aeronauts "continued much as before until 1908" when Wilbur arrived. Throughout 1907, European pioneers like Bleriot, Delagrange and Farman were making hops of increasing length, arguably inspired by Santos Dumont and Vuia before him.

Even before Wilbur made his first flight in France, one of the Euro pioneers (possibly Delagrange, I forget) had flown for more than 15 minutes in Italy. Wilbur's 1908 flying was the "catalyst" for coordinated bank-and-turning by the Europeans, but not for getting off the ground in flying machines. They had been doing that for more than a year before Wilbur arrived (although, ultimately, that also was inspired by reports of WB success in America). I don't have deep knowledge of what the sources say about Vuia's influence, but the source quoted above does indicate he had some. DonFB (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

first well documented?

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

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

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

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

Remember, it doesn't say he was "first to fly." I would not agree to that. It's carefully qualified as: "unassisted," "level surface," "wheeled undercarriage". It's far better documented than Pearse, which depends on witness reports given many years later that are not certain about the date (or even the year) of the events, which completely lack any contemporaneous reporting. For Vuia, several specific dates are reported, with flight distances. Regarding Jatho: there's a distinction in the type of aircraft. In making the recent change to the text of this article, the term "monoplane" got dropped. If we add that back to the description as another qualifier, it makes the combination of the craft and its generally accepted achievement "first". DonFB (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to me that the term well documented is being arbetrarily applied here. Santos Dumont was photographed in mid-air, and performed in font of FIA officials. Is this better documentation than Vuia? Is he the first well documented flight then? If not then a line is being drawn where vuia's evidence is well documented although it isn't as well documenyed as Santos Dumont. In Pearse's case we have witnesses, and physical evidence of no small import. Who decides that this is poorly documented? In Whitehead's case we have articles pre-dating Vuia's flight claims and numerous witnesses. This documentation seems the equal of Vuia's. Whitehead's claims are disputed largely because some argue he would supplant the Wright's priority, but no one is too concerned about Vuia because Early flight claims almost all pre-date him by a considerable margin. Also the nature of Vuia's claims is so limited that many historians would dismiss it's characterization as flight(you are no doubt aware of the distinction made by some, including Jatho in refering to his own performances which spanned up to 3 times the length of Vuia's longest claimed flight, between flight and a mere 'hop'.)Romaniantruths (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

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

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

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

My suggestion actually was to write an introduction in your own words. A quick note: It was not my intention to become a "mediator" or "peacemaker" in this debate, although that sort of seems to be happening. I've already done edits on this article going back many months. I've recently been in the strange position where I could agree with the wording supported by each side. I guess the point I want to make is that nobody is going to "win" this debate. There will have to be some compromise.

So let me ask what part, if any, of the current intoductory wording do you not agree with? How would you change it--in your own words?

Another point. Plenty of articles on all kinds of subjects contain competing opinions, as expressed by reliable sources, footnoted. This article can do the same. Instead of trying to make this article--or its introduction--express a single triumphant point of view, the article can express that historians/reliable sources hold more than one opinion, or have given more than one description, of Mr. Vuia's accomplishments. But I don't mean this article should go on endlessly about what all the other pioneers did. I just mean we should find good sources to support what each side wants to say. And we should say it very briefly. I see no reason why the article cannot begin something like:

Following the introduction, the article could give readers the link(s) to the First Flying Machine and/or Early Flight articles.

The article could then explain briefly that Vuia's efforts were important because he demonstrated publicly to the European aviation community that it was possible to make a direct takeoff on wheels without an incline or catapult. This part of the article would not say he was "first." That issue would already be covered in the very brief introduction.

Get my point? It can give both points of view, very briefly, with footnotes. The article need not, and should not, try to block out one of the points of view. I believe that both points of view can be fairly supported with good footnotes. Even the Wright brothers article introduction says they were not the first to fly experimental airplanes.

I think we need to work on specific wording instead of battling endlessly about which sources are more qualified or more knowledgeable. I think probably all of the sources that have been talked about can be used. They can be used to support the two basic points of view which the article can express in the introduction, as in my suggestion above. Instead of trying disqualify some widely-accepted sources because they don't agree with an editor's opinion, the sources should be used to support the text in the article which represents that point of view. After the brief introduction and explanation why Vuia's work was important, the article should probably try to avoid repeating the arguments and just do an improved job of telling more about Vuia's work and life.

So your turn. Write a compromise introduction. In your own words. DonFB (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of surrounding the "first", "second", "last" terms this are very tricky problems tackled by several aviation historians especially during the early flights, as the many definition were just getting invented and the "official" recongnition was again defined by the meanning ot official at the time compared to now adays ( FAI is founded in 1905 only). For instance regarding the Wright borther's flighs in the 1903, by definition of flight the Human cannonball can be considered as flying. The Wright catapult it was a similar ingenious system like in a human cannonball gun to accelerate a human to the flying speed. Of course the definition of a flying machine evolved over the time and according to the accounts, Vuia-1 was definetly a step in demonstating that the flying machine can be autonomus. Another question: how can Wright brother's flights from 1903 can be recognized officially as the FAI was founded 2 year later? Does it mean that Wright brothers flights from 1903 cannot be considered as "first" because they were not "officialy" recognized? All this controversies have a lot of relevance and that is why I consider, as we disccused with DonFB that they have to be listed somehow. But to keep the articles readable and pin-point the relevant aspect of that particula invention presented all this controversies have to be listed separately, like for instance the proposed sandbox and then add the link to that page in all relevant articles, as for instance Traian Vuia.

--91.154.44.31 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DonFB: I'll put something together. I appreciate your position, and can understand that you don't want this to turn into another Coanda 1910 type situation, so I'll put some thought into what can be agreed on and get back to you soon.

Lsorin:I never said the Wrights were FAI(?) recognized. I did point out that they didn't use a catapult in 1903 or 1904. Why do you keep bringing up something they didn't use at the time? Since you want part of the information in a separate article, what do you personally think about this proposition: We put your claim that Vuia was the first to demonstrate that the flying machine can be autonomous, and your claim that the Wrights used a catapult in 1903(a year before they invented it) in your proposed controversy article because these are things that are highly disputed. The discussion here is not about wether vuia was the "first autonomous flight", but about wether his monoplane, which flew(if it really did fly before Santos Dumont) after widely accepted autonomous flights by the Wrights and Jatho, was better documented in it's flight than Ader and Pearse and Whitehead.

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

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

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

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

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

It looks my suggestions are not being understood or are just being disregarded, as apparently shown by these two recent comments:

Romaniantruths wrote:

"Are you willing to agree that this article will not claim that Vuia performed the first autonomous flight?"

Lsorin wrote:

"I disgree: because being the first autonomous plane to take-off is what it makes Vuia-1 an important plane"

My whole point in my most recent comment is that the article can give *both* of those opinions, with good footnotes for each. Re-read my suggested Introduction above. You guys are each still trying to "win" the debate with an unbending unconditional claim that Vuia "was first" and that Vuia "was not first", and you each apparently want to exclude the other point of view, even if the other point of view can be supported with good footnotes.

As I indicated before, I don't think either one of you, or probably anybody else, can "win" this debate, and, frankly, should stop trying and instead should focus on how to write the article so it shows *both* points of view, with good footnotes for each. The sources, I believe, can support both points of view. And it can be done, I believe, in two sentences, similar to what I suggested (in quotes) in my post above.

Some sources say he was "first". Other sources say somebody else was "first". What's wrong with writing the article that way? That's what Misplaced Pages editors should be doing, not trying to crush another point of view which has reasonable sources to support it. You should be guided by the sources, not your personal opinions. If reliable verifiable sources support more than one point of view, that's what the article should say. I don't think this article, or its editors, can "decide" which of those sources are "right" and which are "wrong". Yeah, I have an opinion also. But it looks to me like some sources support an opinion that disagrees with me. So, take a break from arguing who is right and who is wrong, and try writing an introduction which reflects both opinions. DonFB (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gee, now I'm confused about your original proposal, DonFB. I thought you were proposing that it was the first well documented monoplane flight. Are you now saying you don't think Jatho's numerous biplane flights happened either? And Are you also skeptical that the Wrights flew without their catapult? And that Maxim's plane achieved liftoff even though it had to break through it's restraining rails to do so?

The truth is Vuia's flight has a few documentation problems of it's own. Even the footnotes supplied by Slorin include one that says he didn't fly until October 8 (after Santos Dumont had flown twice), and one reporting on his tests in October 1906 saying he hasn't acheived free flight. These are Flight in 1909, and Flight 1916 quoting Auto of 1906 respectively. These are the only contemporary reports I've seen as yet, and they make me wonder if the date of his flight really predates Santos Dumont, and even if his date of flight is any better established than Pearse's. At least there aren't any contemporary reports saying they saw Pearce fail to fly when he claimed he did.

The later Romanian sources look a little funny too. One says his flight of March 18, 1906 was reported in the March 3,1907 New York Herald(not exactly a scoop), But the other claims 1906 as the date for this coverage. They also make some mind boggling claims like Vuia having built the third aircraft engine in history after the Wrights and Manly. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think either one of two approaches can work in the article Intro.

One approach: Some say Vuia was "first self-propelled". Some say others were "first self propelled." The article can say both those things and, I believe, back them up with good references.

The other approach: The article introduction can dispense completely with dueling "firsts," and just say: His was "first monoplane with wheels, powered, manned, unassisted well-documented takeoff". And not say somebody else did that first, because that way of putting it is so highly restricted/qualified that it eliminates everyone else.

To review: a less-restricted phrasing would give "both sides" (but only Vuia's name) in the intro. A highly restricted phrasing would only mention the Vuia "side" in the intro.

I'm not gonna get sucked into arguing about Jatho and all the rest of 'em, because we (editors here) can never "settle" the issue. Our challenge, instead, is to write an intro/article that fairly expresses what the sources say. What the sources say. Not our judgement/conclusion/opinion/deduction about the "truth" of what the sources say. (Misplaced Pages is about Verifiability, not Truth.)

I will make one comment about specifics. The source you gave for Vuia's October attempt, does not claim--if I read it correctly--that Vuia never took off before October. It just talks about what he did on that particular occasion in October.

Still waiting to see your effort at writing a compromise introduction. DonFB (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but I'm afraid I must be confused again. You seem to be saying that we can dispense with dueling 'firsts' by saying he was the 'First' monoplane with wheels to make a 'powered, manned, unassisted well-documented takeoff. The well-documented part is a value judgement on the documentation of Vuia's claimed first flight as opposed to the claimed flights of Ader, Pearse, and others. Who is making this judgement? You say we can never 'settle' this issue, but you seem to want to 'settle' it by deciding whose documentation is or isn't sufficient, and without any discussion here as to what this documentation is. Isn't this your 'judgement/conclusion/opinion/deduction' about what the sources say?

I could see saying in the lead that Vuia flew a powered monoplane in 1906, but saying it was first is saying the other earlier claimants weren't first, therefore they didn't fly. How about "possibly the first powered monoplane to fly" as a compromise? The wheeled undercairrage and unassisted take-off would not be germane in this context since no-one claims to have flown an un-wheeled monoplane first, or to have flown a monoplane with a catapult first. Romaniantruths (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see why "well-documented" can be thought of as a value judgement. I was hoping the phrase could be accepted. The intention of the phrase is not to suggest that others did not fly, but only to say that Vuia's efforts were....better documented, leaving open the possibility that others did fly earlier. By "well-documented," I mean there were public reports about Vuia's takeoffs at the actual time he did it (as shown in the secondary sources), and there is also general acceptance of his takeoffs by the main secondary sources, like Gibbs-Smith and other aviation historians. The issue is not if he made takeoffs, but how to describe them. In contrast, for the earlier pioneers (except the Wrights), there are either questions whether they flew at all, or there is less or no "documentation" at the time they did their work. (Pearse: nothing contemporaneous; Ader: no public reports; Whitehead: very controversial.)

I appreciate your suggestion of "possibly the first powered monoplane to fly." But it does seem like that exact phrase could also apply to the earlier pioneers. But those earlier efforts are....here's that phrase again: not as well-documented, in the sense that I described just above.

I don't want to fight dogmatically for "well-documented." It just seems like a good way to distinguish Vuia as "first monoplane" from the earlier pioneers. Can you think of some other way to do this? DonFB (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Documentation section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will try to make a sandbox and play a bit before we publish it. We can send all the editors rising those questions to that sandbox. When ever that sandbox will make some, sense will be published as an article. I expect somebody like Romanianthrus to be very active in there. ;)

Another interesting link. It contains the articles from L'Aerophile about Vuia and his tests. It would be nice to be translated. --Lsorin (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• i will add some more documentations, stating that Vuia N.1 was the first heavy then air aircraft who take off and had a short flight, using just the power of his engine, in 1906, unlike Wright borthers who used other devices to help the take off. As well Traian Vuia was the third in the world (after Wright brothers) who flight an aircraft, he made first full monoplane and was first who had a landing gear with rubber wheels
• http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200367.html
• http://books.google.com/books?id=tDmR7DhM_uEC&pg=PA35&dq=traian+vuia+first+heavier+than+air+aircraft&hl=en&ei=rkSkTNSjLszKswbN2qGcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=-5FNAAAAYAAJ&q=traian+vuia+first+heavier+than+air+aircraft&dq=traian+vuia+first+heavier+than+air+aircraft&hl=en&ei=rkSkTNSjLszKswbN2qGcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ
• http://books.google.com/books?id=bCoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA139&dq=vuia+n.1+monoplane&hl=en&ei=xkmkTMfYCMWRswaxstytCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.24 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Gibbs-Smith

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

Gibbs-Smith stuff from Misplaced Pages neutral point of view is just another reference. If is reliable or not as the main source is always questionable like any other reference. The newer ( historically) the reference are, the more correct they are. --Lsorin (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Newness does not necessarily make for greater accuracy. A very complete and exhaustive work stands on its own regardless of the passage of time. Binksternet (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested compromise introduction

My latest offering of a "compromise" introduction:

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

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

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

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

Totally disagree. Such an entry makes the Vuia-1 completely irrelevant for the early flying machines listing or any kind of listing in Misplaced Pages. Binksternet and Romaniantruths are stuck to Google's searches in English language which is short of strong references about the plane. I wonder why anybody in the world will build a full flying replica ( in this case two ) of an airplane one century old, not relevant for the history of early machines.

I would agree to remove all possible references to this Vuia-1 plane from the whole Misplaced Pages instead of having this kind of lies listed. --Lsorin (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that your tone has retrogressed. I don't appreciate your calling my good-faith effort to write an acceptable introduction "lies". That kind of intemperate and ill-considered language does not help our work here. Also, stop talking about what you don't like about other editors, and start talking about the text of the article.

You have not given a single specific reason for your objection, nor what part of the wording you find objectionable. Specific comments on specific text will help improve the article, not irresponsible accusations of "lies". DonFB (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, your all-or-nothing approach is not supported by Misplaced Pages policies. Your assertion that DonFB's compromise approach makes the aircraft irrelevant is wrong—it remains relevant even when there is a dispute. More important than supposed "lies" or truth is a straight statement to the reader that some experts think one way, and some think another way. Reliable, verifiable sources are more important than the variable and arguable concept of truth.

We are not here to determine why a group of air enthusiasts would build a replica. That has nothing to do with improving the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, I hope there this is just a misunderstanding. I have really appreciated you entries and especially your good-faith and your neutrality regarding this topic. What I question is the solidity of the references used for your new proposal? I really fell this is just the personal felling of some editors ( excluding you ), but you start to be manipulated by their personal theories without reliable references. --Lsorin (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Faulty references

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

Yes I agree! That is definitely a faulty reference! There is no account in the magazine who wrote that list and based on what account 3 years after they happened. The L’AÉROPHILE magazine was recording on monthly basis Vuia's tests in 1906! Please learn some French Romaniantruths, before starting messing up articles in Misplaced Pages. Maybe the author in Flight magazine was having the same problem like you today.--Lsorin (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the footnote text which said the October 8 flight was Vuia's "first". The source does not say "first". It also does not say that he did not make a flight "until" that date. The source says only that he made a flight on the date, without referring to what he did or did not do previously. Several secondary sources give specific dates for Vuia flights beginning in March, 1906, including the Hargrave/Pioneers website listed in External Links of this article. I have seen no reliable source that doubts, questions or refutes Vuia's March 18 takeoff, or others he made in the summer of 1906. A conclusion or deduction by a Misplaced Pages editor, based on an assumption of the meaning of a particular source, cannot be included in an article, even in a footnote. DonFB (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Warning tags

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

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

Revisions

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

As I wrote above, I will be re-adding the documentation section because it is an appropriate place to discuss the shoddy, almost worthless documentation of Vuia's claims.70.231.227.221 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I revised wording in the reinstated Documentation section. The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Words To Watch section (WP:CLAIM) says: "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence." The sources for this article do not support use of the word "claim," because the sources do not raise questions or express doubts about the Vuia flights. Using the word "claim" in this article expresses only an editor's doubt, not that of the standard sources for Vuia. The same is true for the phrase: "but no other witnesses were present"--it is an expression of implied doubt or skepticism which is not supported in the sources about Vuia. DonFB (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I made similar reversions to your edits in the Introduction, for the same reasons. Very disappointed that you decided to change the Intro without discussing it first, which was a process we were all involved in. DonFB (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible the remove the text referred by the reference ? It does not make sense in the same article to have the same text twice.--Lsorin (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be bold. I agree. DonFB (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Introduction again

For the present I have just removed some of the more silly un-encyclopedic text from the intro: there is no such thing as a lighter than air monoplane, and no poweed monoplane is claimed to have been launched with external assistance. 70.231.227.221 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please come with references supporting your claim and discuss them on the talk page, before you start editing and article with {{POV-lead}} and {{Expert-subject}} headers.--Lsorin (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reference to a lighter than air monoplane. Find one before you put that ridiculous claim back. (Good luck)Romaniantruths (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can support the change to the Intro which does not use the words "unassisted," "heavier than air," and "flying machine". By way of explanation, in the previous wording, "monoplane" modifies "flying machine". It describes what type of flying machine took off. Compare with "biplane flying machine". In the same way, "heavier than air" modifies "flying machine". To sum up, in the previous version, the type of flying machine is described/modified by the terms "monoplane" and "heavier than air". As I previously mentioned, it is possible to cherry-pick bits of the wording and claim it's wrong, but only if not seeing and understanding the whole expression as written. I don't object to the absence of "unassisted," but neither does retaining that word make the intro wrong, because it is true that the takeoff was unassisted and the takeoff was well-documented. DonFB (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

maybe you can explain to me how Vuia writing a letter to L'aerophile claiming that he flew while his mechanic and two old freinds were watching counts as documentation. And by the way, have you noticed that 4 of the 8 footnotes refer to references which credit Ader with unassisted flight of a heavier than air monoplane before 1900? the Centennial of Flight reference which I believe you added is one. So is the Hargrave-Pioneers site(Look up Ader on the site instead of just reading the vuia page). And two of the flight magazine articles credit him as well.

Take note that I'm not searching around the internet to find and pile up references to support my contentions as yet. I'm just pointing out that the references supplied by Lsorin(who is highly prejudiced toward Vuia), and you(Who claims to have never seen evidence that vuia wasn't the first well-documented monoplane flight) are supportive of my contentions. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Take the sources you have problems with to WP:RSN WP:RSN. Don't change the article without getting to a consensus. Just editing because you fell some kind of personal hate against Vuia, does not stand in Misplaced Pages. The introduction was agreed above.--Lsorin (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• the introduction was not agreed above because I didn't agree to it. Romaniantruths (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The only doubt about Vuia's flights that I've seen is yours (Romaniantruths). The sources for this article do not express any doubt about his flights/hops. One source that you construe as doubtful or skeptical is Flight magazine, which itself does not express any doubt, but simply does not list Vuia flights before October. In the magazine's same table of "the performances which have been made" there are also no entries for 17 Dec 1903.

(My comment continues after a brief interruption, just below, by an unsigned comment by Romaniantruths and my response.)

• Performances which have been made. What kind of performances are those that haven't been made?

This is the exact quoted phrase that you inserted into the article, when you wrote in your edit summary: "used wording from article to avoid editorial slant of any kind". If you have changed your mind and no longer like that phrase or want to delete it from the article, I have no objection. DonFB (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(Continued from above, which was interrupted where I wrote: "entries for 17 Dec 1903".)

In sources about Ader, doubt or conditional phrasing can be found. For example, the Hargrave site that you mentioned quotes "A History of Aeronautics" by E. Charles Vivian, whose book includes a chapter or section titled "Not Proven," in which the author wrote about Ader: "there is no proof either way, and whether he was or was not the first man to fly remains a mystery in the story of the conquest of the air." (My post is again interrupted by Romaniantruths, just below. After his interruption, my post resumes with the words, "Nevertheless, I look forward....")

• Try reading the reference you're quoting in it's entirety. E. Charles Vivian credits Ader with short hops which were not considered full flight in 1897. You're arguing that Vuia's short hops are somehow qualitatively different from this? Ader's flights are generally discussed in the context of wether he deserves priority over the Wrights, and there is a great deal of justifiable skepticism over this. Do not confuse this skepticism with the question of wether he ever got off the ground at all, which is the most that anyone credits Vuia with.Romaniantruths (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I look forward to what you may be able to find if you decide to commence "searching around the internet to find and pile up references to support my contentions." DonFB (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As well there is no reference in Flight of other tests in August basically rendering that source irrelevant. As well the author of that list is completely missing.--Lsorin (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of tests Vuia claimed to make in August because it's a list of performances that have been achieved, not failures, or unsubstantiated claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths wrote (to me):

"You're arguing that Vuia's short hops are somehow qualitatively different from this?" (re: Ader)

Nope. I'm not arguing at all about any presumed qualitative difference. I'm simply pointing out that Vuia's flights/hops are not challenged, questioned or subject to doubt or speculation in either contemporaneous or present-day reliable and verifiable sources, unlike reputed takeoffs by all pioneers before him (even the Wrights, according to fringe, though not reliable, sources). This article, like every other one in Misplaced Pages, must be built on information and opinions presented in the reliable and verifiable sources, not on editors' opinions or evaluations (such as "shoddy") about the information in those sources.

If you really want to argue this stuff (and I know you do), I suggest you jump into Lsorin's incipient draft of an article about aviation pioneer "Controversies". I might even join you there, and we'll have a lot of fun. But presently, accepted aviation history in reliable sources does not support your POV about Vuia. I'm not in sympathy with the grandiose claims that are made for Vuia in some places, and this article no longer makes such exaggerated statements about him. However, for the forseeable future at least, the damage is done: the internet is now filled with those exaggerations about Vuia, many or most of them mirrored from earlier versions of this very article. DonFB (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in what you think you do or don't know about me I have read what you said about opinions of editors having no place here, and I agree. So I will remove your opinion that this was the first 'well documented' monoplane flight. I am especially confident in doing this since every reference you have presented to 'prove' your opinion that Ader's flight is disputed has actually said that Ader did in fact leave the ground under his own power. If you disagree with this I recommend that you go play in Lsorin's sandbox. It seems like just the place for you controversial claims.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you agree with the fundamental concept of NPOV. As I said earlier, I did not wish to dogmatically defend the term "well-documented". At that time, I invited you to offer an alternative. Now that you finally have, perhaps it can be accepted without additional changes. DonFB (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths, please list the references supporting your truths. Your personal truths are not generally accepted.--Lsorin (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, please list the references supporting yourt truths. your personal truths are not generally accepted.

And if your want to see why I changed the lede, read the Traian Vuia talk page. I'll post a link to it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Post the link fist then we agree and then you update the page.--Lsorin (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to accept the following?....

"This was the first unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven monoplane with a wheeled undercarriage that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is accepted by aviation historians." DonFB (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree--Lsorin (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Drop the unassisted and I agree too. No one flew an assisted take-off frfom level ground before him in a monoplane, so this unnecessarily limits his acheivement.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Find the reliable source which is tells that Vuia first take-off was assisted, except "by the propeller".--Lsorin (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like we're really close.

A quick review.......

On Sept 29, I suggested a sentence within the introduction to the article that included the word "unassisted". An editor agreed on the Talk page and the sentence was inserted into the article, replacing previous wording. Another editor subsequently modified the sentence. Among the changes, "unassisted" was deleted. I responded by saying I could accept that change. I can still accept it. Today, I posted a suggested revision to the sentence as a compromise for other problematic parts of the wording. I added back "unassisted," hoping it might not be a big deal. That word now appears to be the only part of the sentence in dispute between the editor who agreed with it and the editor who modified it. Having said and repeated that I could accept the sentence without "unassisted," perhaps I should recuse myself. But I've decided to be bold and want to offer reasoning why the word can used.

The word can make completely clear to readers that the Vuia takeoff was not assisted. The issue of "assisted" or "unassisted" takeoff is significant, and sometimes contentious, in articles/biographies about aviation pioneers. If this article can state unequivocally that Vuia was unassisted, that's useful and relevant information for readers. As applied to Vuia, the word "unassisted" is factual and non-controversial. In very long discussions about this article, no one has said that a reliable source doubts that fact or supports a decision to exclude it from the article.

My current suggested intro says the takeoff and landing happened "on a level surface". That quoted phrase clearly implies that no assistance was used. However, rather than only implying the fact, it seems preferable to state it explicitly, which gives readers another specific piece of notable information.

As a convenience, here is the current suggested sentence to be included in the article introduction:

"This was the first unassisted takeoff and landing on a level surface by an engine-driven monoplane with a wheeled undercarriage that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is accepted by aviation historians." Comments welcome from all editors. DonFB (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little unclear on your objection, Lsorin. Was this not, "The first powered takeoff from a level surface by monoplane that was publicly reported soon after it occurred and is widely accepted by historians"? This is already a fairly cumbersome phrase for a lead. Why do you want to make it longer?Romaniantruths (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Vuia's first fight was relevant for being the first "unassisted". If you say that is just the "first powered takeoff" this will clash with Wright brother's first "assisted" take-off. So until you don't demonstrate with relevant sources that is was assisted, then you cannot have as just the "first powered takeoff" because of the discrepancy.--Lsorin (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments for each of you to consider. For Romaniantruths: The only objection you seem to offer to "unassisted" is that it adds another word to the sentence. I haven't seen an objection based on factuality, or sources. For Lsorin: Even if the sentence does not say "unassisted," it will not clash with the Wrights, for two reasons: 1) the sentence specifies "monoplane"; 2) the Wright Flyer at Kitty Hawk in 1903 did not use a catapult. DonFB (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Traian Vuia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Let's start with basics, Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. The editor who wishes to introduce "unassisted" into the sentence has the burden to provide a reliable source to support that assertion. Such a source must be one which (a) acknowledges, recognizes, or asserts that the issue of assistance is part of the controversy concerning early manned flight and, (b) in that context, (c) clearly asserts that Vuia's flight was unassisted. The source must, of course, also be reliable. However, parts (a) and (b) would also be true, but with "assisted" substituted for "unassisted" in (c) if an editor wishes to affirmatively assert that Vuia's flight was assisted. The controversy over the word, however, I suspect masks the real dispute: Whether in articles about early manned flight the issue of assistance is so important that the article is ambiguous or insufficient without an affirmative assertion one way or another. The answer for that, at Misplaced Pages, is simple: Misplaced Pages does not exist to settle real–world disputes; Misplaced Pages exists to report received knowledge, as adjudged by the existence or absence of reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources to resolve a real world dispute related to an otherwise–notable article and that leaves an uncertainty or ambiguity in the article, then that uncertainty or ambiguity must simply remain in the article. This dispute, therefore, like all content disputes at Misplaced Pages, must be settled by providing and evaluating reliable sources. Until that happens then no amount of discussion here can resolve the problem.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan for joining this discussion. The word unassisted is proposed as a form to shortly explain that Vuia plane was not the first aircraft to fly with engine ( the first was Wright Brother's flight with the catapult which is in this cases "assisted" ) but was the first aircraft to achieve the take-off speed under it's own power and untethered. As well was the first monoplane. This is was is listed in most of existing references listed at the Library of the Romanian Academy.--Lsorin (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

newspapers all over the world

The claims about the coverage Vuia's tall tale recieved are not borne out by the reference. And the reference itself is full of provably false claims. Nature never did an article about vuia, only the French La Nature did, and the New York coverage they claim was in 1907, and was about a 1907 flight which wasn't any more sucessful than his 1906 attempts. This last should be obvious- when's the last time you saw a newspaper run an article about something from the previous year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ion G Nemes (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Texts that contradict each other

The work of Traian Vuia was not useful to anybody but Alberto Santos Dumont recognized Vuia as a precursor!

1) "his experiments did not result in advances in aviation." 2) "Aviation pioneer Alberto Santos Dumont, who made famous short flights in Paris in October and November 1906, recognized Vuia as a "forerunner" of his efforts, as described by Charles Dollfus, the curator of an aeronautical museum in Paris."

Somebody has to revise the Misplaced Pages page about Traian Vuia and make it more coherent. There is a picture made in spring 1906 with the plane of Vuia and Santos Du Monde. See: http://www.earlyaviators.com/evuia1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.65.72 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Text, not supported by citation, removed

Traian Vuia was the first who took-off unaided (by a catapult, slope, front wind or by the engine coupled directly to the wheels) in an airplane having a wheeled undercarriage. So the text "and his experiments did not result in advances in aviation." is unfair, not supported by proofs, by any citation, and for this reason I removed it.

Supporting evidence that Vuia had a contribution in the advancement of aviation

(1)quote “In August 1906 Vuia achieved new successes. On the 12th , the machine twice left the ground on flights of about 30 ft. On the 19th, a fine day, he flew 80ft, at a height of about 8ft, but crashed.”

(2)An editorial note in the September 1906 issue of L’Aerophile reads quote “At a moment when similar experiments are under way or being planned it is only just to recall that M. Vuia is the first person in France to have really attempted, with a machine able to carry a man, the direct take-off of an airplane having a wheeled undercarriage.”

(3)A note in June 1907 that appeared in L’Aerophile reminds readers that, quote “The model 1 Vuia aeroplane, it should not be forgotten, was tested publicly in advance of all contemporary machines – from early in February 1906.”

Source of all citations is http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200368.html which is an article from the Reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

First and most importantly, Vuia did not fly his machine. He attained a hop with it, at best. Secondly, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith says he contributed nothing to the advancement of aviation. Gibbs-Smith's analysis is more important than earlier assessments. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith did not say that the experiments of T. Vuia "did not result in advances in aviation." or that "he contributed nothing to the advancement of aviation". This is what I found about what Gibbs-Smith wrote regarding Traian Vuia, quote "The British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith described this aircraft as "the first man-carrying monoplane of basically modern configuration", yet "unsuccessful" because it was incapable of sustained flight." I will remove the text "and his experiments did not result in advances in aviation." because it is attributed to an author that did not write it.

Please, do not try to mislead people by attributing your personal opinions to an well known author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk • contribs)

I looked up the quote from Gibbs-Smith and it is about the Brazilian airplane man Alberto Santos-Dumont. It is not about Traian Vuia. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Documentation paragraph is inaccurate and contains mistakes

(1) The text "and of his later airborne test of September 1906" is incorrect and not supported by the reference indicated (see http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%200368.html).

In his letters to L'Aerophil (published in April and September 1906), Vuia described a few short flights he had performed in the interval March 18 - August 19, 1906. I propose the text be changed in: "and of his later airborne tests, till August 19, 1906".

(2) As it is formulated, the Documentation paragraph leaves the reader with the impression that Traian Vuia never performed any observed, public take off and landing and no official or credible person has ever witnessed his plane leaving the ground, which is again incorrect because L'Aerophile from October 1906, page 243 (see the citation below), contains and article, not based on any letter from Vuia, which describes two public flights, one measuring 4 meters with Vuia plane flying for 0.4 seconds on October 8, 1906 and another that took place on October 14, 1906 when the same airplane flew 0.6 seconds.

I propose the insertion of this text "Vuia performed the first known public demonstration of his airplane on October 8, 1906 when he flew 4 meters in 0.4 seconds in front of two officials (MM. Archdeacon and Ed. Surcouf) from Aéro Club of France." before "Another journal of the period, Flight, credited him with a hop of five meters"

L'Aerophile from October 1906, page 243 Quote "Le 8 octobre, étaient présents a l'expérience : MM. Archdeacon, président de la Commission sportive de l'Aéro-Club de France et Ed. Surcouf, secrétaire de la Commission sportive. Terrain humide et peu roulant, brises folles. … Trois essais dans la matinée. Dans le premier, l'appareil monté par M. Vuia s'allège visiblement sans quilter le sol. Durée tolale du trajet : 21 s. 3/5. Pression dans la chaudière : 42 kilogs. Dans le deuxième essai, la vitesse est plus grande et l'appareil quitte le sol des quatre roues, volant à une quinzaine de centimètres du sol, parcourant 4 mètres environ en 2/5 de seconde chronométrés par M. Surcouf. Pression : 58 kilogs. Un presse-étoupe saute, inler-rompant le parcours. Dans le troisième essai, l'incidence des plans avait été augmentée, mais le réchauffement du gaz se faisant mal, l'aéroplane ne s'enlève pas complètement.

Aux expériences du 14 octobre assistaient encore MM. Archdeacon et Surcouf et de nombreux témoins, entre autres Santos-Dumont. Sol assez bon malgré les ondées de la veille. Vent du N.-N.-O. assez fort avec rafales. Dans la matinée, un essai au cours duquel l'appareil quitte par deux fois le sol, le premier bond étant sensiblement plus long que celui du dimanche précédent pour une durée de 3/5 de seconde. Pression : 50 kilogs. Une fissure s'étant déclarée dans un tube de la chaudière, il faut réparer. Deux nouveaux essais officieux sont faits l'après-midi, sans arriver à l'essor, les brûleurs fonctionnant mal. M. Vuia, qui est un modeste, avait fui jusqu'à présent les occasions de se produire. Après ces premiers essais publics, dont le succès sans atteindre celui d'expériences privées antérieures plus heureuses, ni égaler encore le vol de Sanlos-Dumont à Bagatelle, le 13 septembre, mérite cependant les plus vifs compliments" Source: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000520243 select v.14 1906 and go to page 243

No, four meters is not a flight—it is at best a hop. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wright Brothers flew, in 1903, helped by a strong headwind

L'Aerophile from January 1904, page 17, contains an exact account of the flights performed on December 17, 1903 as described by Wright Brothers themselves. They mention a headwind between 22 and 20.5 miles/hour during all their powered flights that day. Also they noted that the ground speed of their plane was 10 miles/hour while its airspeed varied between 30 and 35 miles/hour (see the citation below from L'Aerophile, January 1904, page 17).

I propose the insertion of the following note: "However, it should be mentioned that Wright Brother's plane performed all four tests on December 17, 1903 in strong headwind conditions, flying with a ground speed of 10 miles/hour while its airspeed varied between 30 and 35 miles/hour."

As it is written, the paragraph that compares Vuia and Wright Brother's flights leaves the impression that the flights from December 17, 1903 took place without the help of a headwind which can not be neglected as long as it was at least twice the ground speed of the plane.

L'Aerophile, January 1904, page 17 "« Nos constatations parliculières, faites avec un anémomètre de poche, à une hauteur de quatre pieds (1 m. 20), nous ont indiqué une vitesse de 22 milles (35 kil.=9 m. 72 par seconde) au moment de la première expérience et de 20 milles 1/2 (33 kil.= 9 m. 20 par seconde) au moment de la dernière. « Le départ était donné juste contre le vent. Chaque fois, l'appareil se mit en marche par ses propres moyens, sans l'aide d'une impulsion première ni d'aucun autre secours. … « Contre un terrible vent de décembre, la machine volante avança avec une vitesse de 10 milles (16 kil. = 4 m. 45 par seconde) à l'heure par rapport au sol el de 30 à 35 milles (50 à 56 kil. ou 13 m. 90 à 15 m. 55) à l’heure par rapporl à l'air ambiant." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. The headwind did not "help" the Wright Flyer fly, it helped the men by making it easier to retrieve the machine and return it to its starting position. The Flyer did not require a headwind at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion not supported by any citation. Honestly, it is the first time I hear that the December 1903 plane of Wright Brothers did not need strong winds for taking off. It is also a novelty to hear that the brothers Wright needed the strong headwinds not for taking off / flying but for helping them to push back the plane to the rail once it landed. I will continue to insert the remark I proposed (which is backed by a text written in January 1904 in L'Aerophile which quotes Wrights Brothers themselves) till you come with better citations (credible articles, credible authors, credible journals) that supports your both claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the Flyer, moving at a groundspeed of perhaps less than 10mph (as footnoted in the WB article), was definitely helped to get airborne by the headwind. Recall that the Wrights originally attempted a gravity-assisted takeoff from the sand dune, but decided on the 17th to use flat ground because the wind was so strong. Whether the Flyer required a headwind is a subject for another debate. Presumably, given a long enough rail, it might have lifted off in still air.

For what it's worth, I think this article (Vuia) should simply state what he did, and omit any text which takes the reader toward the rathole of nationalist arguments by attempting to compare Vuia and the Wrights. Such comparisons inevitably degenerate into a Misplaced Pages editors' POV pissing contest. My vote is to completely eliminate the paragraph that begins, "Romanian enthusiasts emphasize" and ends, "where they started". However, if deleting all that text is too extreme, I would support text which simply says: "Romanian enthusiasts emphasize that Vuia's machine was able to take off from a flat surface by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, catapult or headwind." That's an accurate statement, although it should be footnoted. The statement appropriately tells readers about Romanian sentiment regarding their national hero, without attempting (as earlier versions of this article wrongly did) to say that Vuia was first to make an unassisted flight. The article's introduction already says, "Vuia never achieved sustained, controlled flight with his early aircraft" (which would also benefit from a footnote). That's sufficient editorial balance for me. For the sake of editing peace, it would better to omit any explicit mention of the Wrights, because any such comparison will likely elicit a counter-edit, and the edit war will resume. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree because including the points about "without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, catapult or headwind" is specifically including arguments against the Wrights. Nationalist writers make these arguments that the Wright brothers' machine required a rail, an incline, a headwind, and even mistaken arguments such as they supposedly required a catapult (in 1903, when they did not use one). Even when they used a catapult in later flights it was for convenience, to save takeoff distance.

Regarding the reasons for flying into a headwind, the Wrights said to Mr. Root, a beekeeper, that "the wind does the greater part of the work in carrying it back" up the hill. This is from the beekeeper journal published in 1905: Gleanings in bee culture. Also on PBS NOVA. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No argument about the wind helping them carry it back in North Carolina. The catapult was for more than convenience, however. In 1904 Wilbur wrote to Chanute lamenting the difficulty of taking off at Huffman because of the lack of wind and because the takeoff rail, although much longer, was still too short, and he mentioned they were devising a method to overcome the problem. Would you support eliminating the paragraph in the Vuia article that I referred to? DonFB (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Every aircraft inventor who was active during 1903–1906 is compared to the Wrights. There is always something about the Wrights in the reliable sources about Santos-Dumont, for instance, and Vuia. We should not remove the comparison, but it should definitely establish the Wrights as having the first workable aircraft, fully equipped with all necessary flight controls and adequately powered. Weaselly constructions such as "the first to fly without a headwind" and such should be thrown out. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) Quote "Weaselly constructions such as "the first to fly without a headwind" and such should be thrown out." Do you want people to know what exactly each inventor did for the progress of aviation or simply throw out any evidence that do not support your personal views? (2) Quote "Regarding the reasons for flying into a headwind, the Wrights said to Mr. Root, a beekeeper, that "the wind does the greater part of the work in carrying it back" up the hill." This implies that Wright Brothers landed at a lower altitude than the point of depart, as long as they pushed the plane up the hill! It could be partial gliding.

Abuse Reported. I got personal messages coming from the same person who is bulling me that I will be suspended if I continue to insert what he abusively and against all the evidence calls "texts based on personal opinions" despite the fact all my Misplaced Pages contributions are backed by citations from credible publications and authors.

This article clearly explains exactly what Vuia did. He made short airborne hops in a self-propelled machine. Regarding your comment above about the Wrights: You are correct--the Wrights were describing to Root their gliding experiments in North Carolina, where, indeed, they landed lower than their takeoff point. Take some time to study the Wright brothers so you can avoid misunderstanding fundamental facts about their accomplishments. DonFB (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The same idea repeated four times

Someone inserted in four different places the same thing said by the same author. I propose the deletion of (1),(3) and (4) leaving in place just the citation (2).

(1) "Vuia never achieved sustained, controlled flight with his early aircraft." (the beginning of the page) (2) "The British aviation historian Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith described this aircraft as "the first man-carrying monoplane of basically modern configuration", yet "unsuccessful" because it was incapable of sustained flight." (paragraph Flying experiments). (3) "None of these were successful in achieving sustained flight, so Vuia abandoned them." (paragraph Flying experiments). (4) "None of these brief seconds of the aircraft being airborne qualify as sustained, controlled flight." (paragraph Documentation).

The Misplaced Pages page about Vuia clearly states in the beginning that "His first airborne test traveled about 12 metres (39 feet) on March 18, 1906, and his best distance was 24 m (79 ft)." so with this information and what Gibbs-Smith said at (2) is quite clear that Vuia's flights were not sustained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Each of those is needed to balance out the positive text going before. It must be emphasized that Vuia did not achieve sustained flight, as the main problem we get on this page is people who think Vuia was first to fly. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

While four sounds a lot in a relatively short article (there's a lot of life not covered 1907-1918 and 1920-1950 which may make it appear disproportionate) at the moment it seems to follow from the way the article is arranged. You have two opinions on his work Dumont's and Gibbs-Smith on his effective contribution/influence - Gibbs-Smith acknowledges he has the basic features of a modern aircraft but that they didn't work. Then the article says why Vuia gave up certain of his designs - because he wasn't getting anywhere. Then you have the section that lists what he did achieve but that it didn't count as proper flight. (it might be better if what he did achieve in his experiments was incorporated into the chronological flow of the article rather than appearing tacked on afterwards) And when that's all covered in the main body of the article, it needs mentioning in the article summary which is the opening paragraphs of the article. It also comes about because there aren't many who have written authoriatatively on the period so it's the same source backing the one point.

Perhaps a rewrite of the article body would a) put things in the order they happened b) not look like its over-stressing the negative c) clarify what is cited and what is not in the paragraph "Romanian enthusiasts.." particularly the phrase "definitions are intended to take away the title of...from the Wright Brothers" - that could be considered NPOV and could be rewritten in a more encylopaedic manner; enthusiasm implies heart over head, or general lack of scholarship. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase: "definitions are intended to take away the title of...from the Wright Brothers" is poorly done and, without a reference, clearly sounds like editorial opinion. I don't disagree with the phrase, but it should be referenced or eliminated. I think the general approach in the article should be to include a good example of referenced text (one would be enough) that expresses the Romanian point of view and cite countervailing text that expresses the consensus point of view of non-Romanian scholars/historians. It seems to me that the entire issue could be adequately covered in two referenced sentences. Further, I think the quadruple repetition of Vuia's lack of success, even though referenced, is overdone and needs revision. DonFB (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Take off only by On-Board means" is not propaganda

The text that reads "enthusiasts emphasize that Vuia's machine was able to take off from a flat surface by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, or catapult." is wrongly attributed to enthusiasts. The idea was first emphasized in the french journal L'Aerophile (see the citation)

After Vuia's plane was seen, on February 5, 1906, by a group o people, including Georges Besançon, the founder of aeronautical journal L'Aérophile, an article appeared in that periodical which concluded that, I quote,

Citation from L'Aerophile "L'appareil de M. Vuia présenterait tout au moins l'avantage de supprimer les divers artifices auxquels on avait eu recours jusqu'ici pour le lancement des aéroplanes ; traction en cerf-volant par automobiles ou auto-canots, lancement sur rails ou sur plans inclinés, catapultes formidables projetant dans l'espace, d'une prodigieuse chiquenaude, la machine et l’expérimenteteur, etc… Le départ pourrait s'effectuer n'importe ou et par les seuls moiens du bord. Cette combinaison de l'automobile terrestre et de l'aéroplane fut brevetée pour la première fois, croyons-nous, par le vicomte Decazes, à l'aube de l'automobilisme, en 1892, et souvent reprise depuis ; mais pour la première fois, M. Vuia l'a complètement réalisée en vraie grandeur, avec des moyens souvent ingénieux et bien personnels." Source, L'Aerophile v.14 1906 from February 1906, page 54.

As you can see, the article clearly remarked that Traian Vuia's 1906 plane had the potential capability to take off by its own on-board means without being obliged to make use of a tractor automobile or motorized boat, rails, inclined plane or catapult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013‎

Not speaking French, I cannot say that I do see clearly. The google translation is fortunately adequate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Aerophile article was published before Europe became aware of the Wright brothers. The article fails to point out what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith so clearly laid out: if enough energy is applied to a barn door it will 'fly' through the air for tens of meters. These sorts of early aviation tests were categorized by Gibbs-Smith as 'hops', not flights. We cannot accept conjecture by Aerophile about "potential capability"; rather, we look at what Vuia accomplished. He made some hops in his aircraft. He was never able to fly it with sustained and controlled flight. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It would still be correct to say that at the time L'Aerophile opinion was that it showed promise rather than denouncing it as "it'll never fly..." Though that should be context.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely legitimate to tell the reader that Vuia was seen as being at the forefront for several years, until the Wrights' achievements were known, or until the Flyer came to France and showed people sustained flight. I don't know exactly when it was that opinion changed. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The inserted text "The French journal L Aerophile said that it offered a means for aircraft to take off from a flat surface" also correct does not have a clear subject, just an "it", and the overall formulation is confuse and not supported by references. I propose changing this text with, "The French journal L'Aérophile emphasized that Vuia's machine had the capability to take off from a flat surface only by on-board means without outside assistance, such as an incline, rails, or catapult." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"only by on-board means" emphasized by L'Aérophile is essential for the Vuia's plane. I do not understand why the same person systematically deletes this formulation, also it is clearly referenced (Quote "Le départ pourrait s'effectuer n'importe ou et par les seuls moyens du bord."). The formulation is not a later creation of some propagandists. Put the text back please. You try to mislead, to hide the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.73.246 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

still not first monoplane, tractor or not

Ader acheived liftoff first. he used a tractor monoplane. this wasn't even the first tractor monoplane, just the first to acheive liftoff. Tractor monplanes havd bee around for over 50 years when vuia started his experiments.70.231.239.15 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Historians disagree with you. For instance, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1965 that Vuia tested the "first tractor monoplane". Peter W. Brooks wrote in 1959 that "the first tractor monoplane was built by Vuia in 1906, but the first true flights by a monoplane were not made until 1908." Gibbs-Smith also wrote a book dedicated solely to Ader: Clément Ader: his flight-claims and his place in history. He is sympathetic to Ader, describing the 1890 Ader Éole as a tractor monoplane, but without the ability for controlled flight. The Ader Avion was likewise uncontrollable. Gibbs-Smith does not give Ader the right to claim the first successful test of a tractor monoplane.

If we were to credit unsuccessful tests as successful flights (!), then the first tractor monoplane would be from Félix du Temple de la Croix and his brother Louis: the Monoplane which took a hop off the ground in 1874, carrying a pilot. This, too, is discredited by modern historians. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you just wrote that your Gibbs Smith source says the eole was "a tractor monoplane, but without the ability for controlled flight" You also wrote that according to Peter Brooks the "first true flights were not made until 1908" So the "first true flights" weren't Vuia's plane either. so, to paraphrase your own words: Gibbs Smith does not give Vuia the right to claim the first sucessful test of a tractor monoplane. (Although I might point out here that this right is not Gibbs-Smith's to give. If his words and opinions were the absolute and unassailable truth then there would be no need for peer review and the continued existence of avaition historians( I. E. the sun doesn't shine out of Gibbs Smith's asshole!)

"true flight", and "controlled flight" aren't what we're talking about here since neither plane was capable of that. Ader acheived more than Vuia, and earlier. As did others. The Hargrave: the pioneers site listed as a reference in support of vuia on this very page actually lists Ader and Pearce as both flying(in tractor monoplanes!) before the Wrights, let alone Vuia (let's try to keep our focus on the subject at hand here though. We're talking about getting off the ground because that's ALL Vuia ever acheived. I am fully aware that the Wrights are correctly and justly credited with sustained controlled flights) As to your additional sources, you are of course aware from your years of editing wikipedia that piling up references has little merit: Either of us could supply several hundred sources supporting our claims, especially if the blogs of private clubs like "the pioneeers", or That joke of a website from the Wright corporation (who conveniently avoid all mention, as far as I can see, of any occurences before the wright's first flight). And as for your opening phrase "historians disagree with you", well, Historians disagree with you as well. (Like the ones you quoted above) Are you aware that you are in effect arguing that since Ader didn't demonstrate 'controlled, sustained flight' he wasn't before Vuia? Just where does any reliable source say Vuia demonstrated controlled, sustained flight? (Reliable that is. I'm sure you can look around the internet and find some site that says Vuia and Coanda developed all modern flight technology, and then flew off in coanda's magic flying saucer to colonize other worlds to the greater glory of Romania) I will change the page again because it has been my previous experience that when your assertions are questioned, you sometimes just refuse to discuss the topic for months, even though you're still spending hours a night on wikipedia editing. Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

and you seem to be arguing that it's not a plane unless it is 'sucessful'. If that's the case, then why don't you delete all references to the word plane on this page? It wasn't sucessful, therefore by your arguement, it wasn't a plane. Shall we call it a 'hunk of junk'? or a 'thing'? maybe we should name it redfoot!Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the facts, I'm arguing the sources. You have just removed three good sources which say that Vuia was the first tractor monoplane. Each of these authors was quite aware of Ader and of du Temple, yet each of them came to the conclusion that Vuia was first. Misplaced Pages relies on published sources, not logical arguments carried out on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is usefull to add here that wikipedia page on Du_Temple_Monoplane states that the plane lifted off "(from a combination of its own power and running down an inclined ramp)", so again, no autonomous take off. It is really so hard to accept Vuia was the first? He was the first in general, all this monoplane story is just a deviation. Wright used a rampdown plus a rail PLUS A TRUCK WHICH REMAINED ON THE RAIL, so the plane didn't lifted all his take off mechanism, was not autonomous. They've build a plane to be half-left on the ground, that's easier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wrights did not use a downward slope to make their first flights. The myth of the downslope is a favorite of those who favor Vuia as first. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The myth? Are you joking? Here is the very picture taken by Orville itself to Wilbur! This is the original image of the historic moment, documented by its authors! What do you want more? If this is is not a splope then tell me what it is. The description of the flight confirms it: "Orville looks over at Wilbur, positioned behind the camera, and nods with an apprehensive smile. The engine is fired up and the Flyer begins to ROLL DOWN THE HILL ON A SHORT TRACK. As the Flyer reaches the end of the track, Orville grips the controls tight, half in expectancy, the other in prayer. Suddenly, the airplane lifts off the ground and sails across the North Carolina sky. Wilbur, looking on with wonder, snaps a shot of his younger brother carrying out their dreams. His flight lasts all of 12 seconds, 120 feet (36.5 m), at a speed of only 6.8 mph over the ground, and he lands safely on the sand. The next two flights cover roughly 175 and 200 feet (60 m), by Wilbur and Orville respectively."

And again, apart the slope, there is the part of the takeoff mechanism left behind: the track and the truck.

We could make this comment continously on the Wright's page, as you keep doing it with Vuia's, jumping to Wright. But I think is wrong so, Binksternet, you too are not welcome to inject the page of Vuia with your comments about Wright! Is is not appropriate! We didn't inject Wright broders page, neither that of the first flight! If you continue we can open a debate on that, too. Keeping changing Vuia's with negative comments is not in the spirit of Wiki and is just your infinite attempt in cancelling an important event. But you cannot change the facts, better change your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that the recognised first flight by the Wrights was made on level ground but with the dolly driven by a falling weight. Now I am told I am wrong about the weight being used so early and that bit of my edit has been undone. @193.206.81.47, if you are now being told that the slope was not present for that particular flight, then you and I have the same kind of problem here. I hope that like me you will take a deep breath and check these new facts carefully - the article on the Wright brothers says that you and I are both wrong. Certainly, edit warring and ranting will not help our cases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

not the first to take off under own power, or with wheels, etc

Numerous aircraft lifted off from wheels on level ground before Vuia. Jatho was the best known in Europe at that time. He flew over 200 feet in 1902. The fact that the writers in L'aerophile either were ignorant of, or chose to ignore for chauvanist reasons, this achievement doesn't change it. It MAY perhaps shed some light on the reliability of anything this Magazine says. Ader's liftoff in 1890 was also reported in the French press, and reprinted in the well-known PROGRESS IN FLYING MACHINES by Octave Chanute. This was the seminal work on flying machine design in the 19th century. The whole Idea that no one tried to fly with a wheeled airplane capable of flight without external aid before 1906 is just plain silly, and contradicted by many, many references about the many, many people who did so. 70.231.239.15 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We are not speaking here about "trying to fly". Moreover Karl Jato flight in 1902 was not motorised, he succeeded only in 1907. Ader flight at 20 cm was not controlled, while the succesive ones, if ever, had no witnesses. I understood it is hard to accept a different story but let's drop "americans" and "europeans", ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Two important aspects of the Wrights' achievement in 1903 are sustained and controlled flight. The Wright engine had sufficient power to sustain level flight beyond mere "hops", once it got airborne, and their ability to control the flight path was at the time unique. Others had previously taken off under their own power alone and sustained flight, but none had been able to control their flight, and none would do so until a few years later. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As for who was first to attempt take off under their own power, nobody is suggesting that Vuia was, are they? Vuia's lasting achievement was to create the first recognisably modern monoplane design. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not the first attempt. Obviously that was some guy with wings in the middle ages, or maybe some chinese guy with rockets. What was being claimed here is that Vuia was the first to fly an autonomous aircraft (not hop, fly), just have a look at the early versions of this page.. Obviously this was a big load of BS for many, many reasons. As to the idea that this was the first modern monoplane design, that's pretty silly too. It's really just a simplified version of Gaffigny's design of 1890, which had been illustrated in Chanute's Progress In Flying Machines, as well as in at least on of the designer's own books. It even specifies the strange carbonic acid gas motor that Vuia supposedly invented for his craft 15 years later. And even if we assume he independently designed a craft so remarkably similar to this design which had been published in the most widely read book on flying machines of that era, we still need to consider pearse, whose tractor monplane design is obviously much more modern (even down to the 3 axis control he included, (which was poorly placed and ineffective). Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording of lead

The intro to this article contains the phrase "He said his first airborne test traveled about 11 metres (36 feet) on March 18, 1906". This seems to me to be a clear case of weasel wording, the implication being that this is a dishonest claim. So far as I am aware Vuia's claims are generally accepted to be honest & there is moreover a section in the article detailing the fact that the main source for these claims is Vuia's letters to l'Aerophile.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have cleaned it up and added his longest hop for luck. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Vuia's claim was totally unsubstantiated; even L'Aerophile didn't accept it as the truth. And the source used here for the march 18 claim is similarly weasel-worded, so it is appropriate that I amend the article to be as 'weasel worded' as the source. So why should it be stated as fact by wikipedia that he did? And Putting such a dubious claim in the lead is much worse. In addition, even if one assumes he tells the truth in that letter (in spite of the long record of ridiculous claims he later made about being the father of flight), 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. Should we then count that as his second flight? Obviously wind conditions that are gusty enough to lift the non-running plane raise serious questions about that flight. The Idea that it is generally accepted is further bedeviled by the fact that he achieved nothing new so his claims are not looked at critically by most authors of general aviation history. In addition, the terrible inaccuracies of this page in the past spawned thousands of other inaccurate sources on vuia, as did the Romanian Government's penchant for claiming all sorts of inventions as products of the Romanian people: Jet engines, insulin, etc. And then there's the claim that they invented the flying saucer in 1938. Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet's '3 good sources

Your statement about my deleting your sources is surrounded by irrelevancies and inaccuracies by your Romanian pals, so I felt it best to respond under a separate header here. They're not good sources in the first place, and you are claiming some special knowledge about the expertise and knowledge of the authors of these sources. Did you do some INDEPENDENT RESEARCH to find out what they knew and thought? Or did you just make it up? If so, you should be aware that intentionally posting inaccurate information here is a serious violation of the rules(after your proud record of 125,000 edits, you should be aware of that). I don't expect to get an explanation from you, since you have such a long history of hiding and refusing to answer when you don't like the truth you are being confronted with. But you are in the wrong yet again, and sulking won't change that. And we're not arguing sources here, we're arguing your claim that because Ader didn't achieve sustained, controlled flight (wasn't 'successful'), that he doesn't deserve precedence over Vuia, who didn't do it either.

Let me restate it again in simple declarative phrases for you: Ader achieved a short hop in 1890, so vuia's SHORTER, hop 16 years later wasn't the first short hop. Is that clear?

Anyone reading the records here can plainly see that this very point has been discussed here again and again, how many times must this childishly simple bit of logic be explained to you? It is impossible to believe that you still can't understand it. So, do you now understand? Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

An article from Aug. 11, 1906 talks about the 12 m flight of Traian Vuia and does not doubt it

The article "Fournier, Lucien (August 11, 1906). "L'Aéroplane Vuia". La Nature (1733): 164–166." (http://cnum.cnam.fr/CGI/fpage.cgi?4KY28.70/168/100/642/0/0) describes in detail Vuia's plane and mentions its 12 meters flight on March 18, 1906 (see page 166). There is no word in the text that doubts the flight really took place. I do not understand why the user Nemes added "He (Traian Vuia) claimed". I want see a single article from 1906, 1907, 1908, etc., (primary sources) where the author doubts the short flights of Vuia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.24.148 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That you found another source reporting his totally unsubstantiated claims as fact does not change the fact that sources which require actual evidence don't support his claims. Like the source I pointed out as one of the two this article uses on that point.Ion G Nemes (talk)

And I see that you have vandalized the article by removing sources you don't want to aknowledge the truth of. I will revert the article to before you vandalized 

it.```

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)

• Unassessed Romania articles
• Unknown-importance Romania articles
• All WikiProject Romania pages
• Start-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class aviation articles
• Start-Class aerospace biography articles
• Aerospace biography task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2014)