437:
of this article is misleading: "The Wright Flyer (...) was the first powered aircraft designed and built by the Wright brothers. The flight is recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique
Internationale, the standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight".." These statements are wrong in that way that the make any reader believe that the Wright flyer could start by its own engine, which was never the case. Therefore, it has to be clarified in the above mentioned introduction that the Wright flyers required various aiding devices or circumstances for a succesful start. Contrary to what you wrote - for whatever honest reason, e.g., being an US patriot - there is no mentioning of any catapult in Ohio or any headwind in the current article. The only hint that there could be something wrong with the myth of the Wright flyer is " ... 2003 from Kill Devil Hill. Although the aircraft had previously made several successful test flights, sour weather, rain, and WEAK WINDS prevented a successful flight." The term "detractor" only applies to someone ignoring the achievements of other more significant inventors in early aviation, such as
2375:
EEE8AA or FFE4B5 or FFDEAD, or if the sky was ADD8E6 or 1E90FF or B0C4DE or 87CEEB or whether it even was clear, blue...or overcast. But these are mere details. The overarching point I'm making is that it's not appropriate for an editor to arrogate to themself the role of proclaiming a "historically accurate" depiction of anything, especially not by radical revision of a world-famous image. You may think it is accurate. I think it is mere imagineering. You have argued that the articles are not about the "history of photography". My response: that's a non-sequitur. The purpose of the articles is to present accurate encyclopedic knowledge from reliable sources, including knowledge represented by photographs in their original form, or, at least, not radically manipulated to create a vision that springs from an editor's assumptions. In keeping with my original suggestion that a link would be ok, I won't object to image placement in secondary positions like See Also or a
Gallery, but I could never support complete exclusion of the iconic b&w photo from either article, nor its placement anywhere other than in leading or context-appropriate positions.
1007:
question, no I am not wrong. The Wright Flyer was not the first successful powered aircraft. If you go to the Wiki article for 'Aircraft' you will see that the definition includes lighter than air as a method of lift. If you then follow the links to the
History of Aviation, you will see that powered lighter than air aircraft were first: "The first powered, controlled, sustained lighter-than-air flight is believed to have taken place in 1852 when Henri Giffard flew 15 miles (24 km) in France, with a steam engine driven craft". The first Zeppelin flew in 1900. The Wright Flyer was, as specified correctly in the second paragraph, "...the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." The first sentence needs to be changed. I think it is important because many people think the Wright Brothers were the first people to fly and the first sentence reinforces that erroneous belief. I'm not trying to take anything away from their magnificent achievement or claim that some other obscure person actually flew a plane before them. I am simply trying to ensure the article is precise and correct.
511:, did not introduce any innovations to aviation. His short, straight flights in that machine were significant because they were publicly witnessed and stimulated other pioneer aviators in Europe to increase their efforts. Neverthless, two years after the 14-bis flights, European aviators still did not know how to make a coordinated banking turn, nor did they even understand the concept. Wilbur's flights introduced them to it and they rushed to adopt it. The achievements of Whitehead are subject to much controversy and doubt, and other than possibly some of his work with engines, none of his inventions have ever been shown to have contributed to progress in aviation. In any case, this article is not titled, "History of the Invention of the Airplane." Far from ignoring Santos-Dumont and Whitehead, I have made signifcant contributions (and corrections!) to those articles.
500:
catapult in Europe in 1908, but by then he had a more powerful engine and used the catapult by preference. It was a safer way ot taking off than a long ground run. When the French Aero Club threatened to disqualify Wilbur from making a prize-winning flight because of the catapult, he lengthened the rail and took off without the catapult (and won the prize). Other than a few jealous Aero Club bureaucrats, the many thousands of expert and ordinary witnesses to Wilbur's
European flights did not snub their nose at his feats because of the catapult (as a number of revisionist Knowledge (XXG) editors are prone to do). Rather, they joyfully embraced his achievement for what it obviously was: the solution to an age-old challenge.
1130:
the word "airplane" and were superseded by the "modern" Wright design. The Wright airplane was "modern" in the sense that its fundamental control system became the basis for all airplanes that followed, not simply because it was superior to earlier machines, which were essentially non-flying. As has been noted by historians, the 1903 Flyer was not really "practical," so I am not suggesting it be described that way. In this historical context, I think the phrase "first successful airplane" is a better description than "first modern airplane," because it does not incorrectly imply that a dividing line existed in 1903 between flying non-modern airplanes and the flying "modern" Wright airplane.
515:
changed or expanded, please do so, but in a way that is explanatory, not as an accusatory effort to debunk a "myth". The "critical historical points," as you put it, are that the Wright Flyer embodied the Wright brothers' invention of three-axis airplane control and their pioneering airfoil and propeller research, all factors which enabled the airplane to make the first sustained and controlled flight, even though its engine was less powerful than those used by other, unsuccessful inventors at the time. The only "myth of the Wright flyer" that might exist would result from deliberate efforts to re-write history and distort or disregard the importance of the Flyer and its inventors.
1876:
536:
the way they beautifully & efficiently invented the airplane. The airplane wasn't invented in one fell swoop. Inventions, especially one as complex as an airplane, don't happen that way. As far as witnesses to their flights the
Wrights had to stop flying in October 1905 because they no longer had the secrecy(or patent) they wanted and scores of townspeople were witnessing the flights and talking about it. It also seems the Santos-Dumont argument has found it's way from Youtube-to-Knowledge (XXG). Laughable. But interesting all the same. Im pretty sure the Wrights are laughing in heaven.
2642:
overriding consensus is not historically important in terms of being an internationally known multi-generational iconic image. Good work in finding it though, you're very persistent and that's an admirable trait in a
Wikipedian (makes the other editors have to come up with the best arguments). You picked an iconic photo to make this point, and that, I agree, is the way to go to give the concept air and get it out in the open. Maybe an RfC is the way to play this, but I think it would end up favoring the iconic b&w over the nice but questionable "maybe true colored" rendition.
3483:: since this debate started, the talk page has doubled in size from just under 50 kB to just under 100 kB, and simple maths from their contribution history give at least half of that amount. I suggest they let others express themselves, or at least not feel compelled to offer a detailed rebuttal to every editor who opposes them. As for my opinion on the whole thing, it is usually the fact that the historic event is depicted with the usual black and white picture (plenty of things are depicted in black and white without that causing problem). In fact, if I may,
2555:, I need to thank you in particular for providing me with the motivation to do the deep search that was necessary to find this example. I knew from the start here that established precedent would be the most definitive way to resolve this issue, but I was too lazy to do the needle-in-haystack hunt.) But those other lengthy discussions I was able to find were quite fascinating... because those folks presented the exact same type of arguments we have been rehashing here. I'd be glad to share for anyone who wouldn't see this as a waste of space.
192:"It was the first successful powered, piloted, controlled heavier-than-air aircraft." Please give references for this statement, has the pope declared this as an absolute fact, or what is the basis for this statement, formed as an absolute fact? It is not the task of wikipedia to establish absolute truths. That statement needs a reference to an authority who says it is an absolute fact, or the sentence must be changed or stricken. According to whom? And where do you find anybody who can tell us what the absolute truth is?
3534:, my persistence here has been founded on the principle of established Consensus. One which I am conforming to, and you are refusing to follow. In that light, if anyone is being bludgeoned here, it's me. I have expressed willingness to take an extended leave of absence from this entire discussion, and you come back to this section to say, "I suggest they let others express themselves". That is exactly what I announced. I was offering 10.5 months of you all choosing to go against Consensus, unopposed by me.
2917:. The word "reader/s" does not appear on the page. Consensus on the content of Knowledge (XXG) articles is achieved by editors, not readers. Furthermore, no rule directs that consensus in one article must transfer, migrate or automatically apply to any other article. Consensus is achieved on each article, separately. Only the consensus that created or revised a Policy or Guideline applies to all articles. I think you may need more experience on Knowledge (XXG) to gain a better understanding of its functioning.
2024:, I'm glad to know that you too appreciate the effort. This was my first attempt at photo-real colorization. (Or rather, my second attempt. Back on December 16 & 17 of 2018, right on the heels of completing the b&w restoration project, I tried to dive straight into this colorization project. It failed miserably. I think that was because I was burned out at that moment, and did not have the necessary patience reserves. Yesterday's effort was a full success, but admittedly short of perfect.
226:? The usual is to wait a few days at least, if not a week. That's not an encyclopedic statement btw, and I would have removed it even if I wasn't adding a source. The italics not below the first paragraph was actually sufficient to call into question the statement, though I have moved the link into the "See also" section, which is where such links usually go. I hope the stamet and link I have added meet with your apporval, but if not, I'd appreciate it if you would discuss it here first. -
421:
you will know that contrary to what you wrote, it does not "conceal," but explicity refers to both the headwind at Kitty Hawk and the catapult in Ohio. Legitimate historians do not obsess over the headwind and catapult because those issues are of no significance compared to the
Wrights' success in researching, designing, building and flying the first successful airplanes; unfortunately, only willful or poorly-informed detractors want to use those issues to disqualify the Wrights.
416:"Self-sustained" is a term of your devising. "Sustained flight," which the historians speak of, means continuing without loss of velocity or altitude. The successful circling flights in 1904-1905 prove beyond rational doubt that the Flyer had that ability. The headwind at Kitty Hawk subsituted for a long acceleration run, which was impractical at the site. The catapult in Ohio performed the same function, for the same reason. Contrary to what you have written, the Flyer did not
2838:
less bias from how the event was witnessed, the b&w is like trying to enter a turtle in the Indy 500. Black&white is but a speedbump in the road of progress. The tried & true process which makes
Knowledge (XXG) great. We are looping around the Brickyard in a cycle of continuous improvement, on the whole. The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500. And b&w photos likewise rise to the top in articles which focus on photography. --
31:
495:
the resistance falls below the thrust. We have found it practically impossible to reach a higher speed than about 24 miles on a track of available length...." From Wilbur's comment, it is clear that a breeze of much less than 20 mph (35 km/h) was sufficient for takeoff, contrary to your conclusion. Wilbur also said "winds are mostly very light" at the field (Huffman
Prairie in Ohio). Neverthless, the Wrights made about 50 takeoffs there
1548:
original Wright flyer. Note that e.g. the original photo from the Weißkopf flight (the one, the newspaper lithography was made from) disappeared around 1906, which is before the photo in question first appeared. BTW: The first photo definitely shows the original Wright flyer and it has been analyzed by aviation experts already, from the height of the plane and the position of the rudder, this is definitely from a flight of around 30m.
1970:. No, the reason for presenting it in black&white is because that's a correct representation of its actual appearance as a world-famous artifact. I believe it's inappropriate for the encyclopedia to manipulate it or any historical image in an attempt to recreate what an editor believes real life looked like. The encyclopedia is obligated to present historical information and imagery without distortion or editorializing.
161:
590:
of the Wright
Brothers has been considered a historical event but never has been given an official "grade" by the FAI." I have re-written the article's introduction to more accurately cite the FAI view. The article published by the FAI (linked in this Knowledge (XXG) article's citation), although obviously written with sincere admiration, contains a number of inaccuracies and apparent fabrications.
4119:. I am disappointed with in in several key aspects. Wilbur's fleshtones are HORRID. All of the wood tones are off from being perfectly convincing. Etc, etc. This was my first photo colorization. I did it with freeware. There are countless thousands of people who can do a MUCH BETTER JOB. But the argument presented toward the top is that using my far from perfect colorization will
3641:. I'd suggest backing off of this article and talk page for a while (probably a month or more), and pursue some other interests on or off Knowledge (XXG). Please realize that discussions that drag on like this one has quickly become a time sink to most users, who have busy lives amd other interests besides Knowledge (XXG). So please, give it a break, and allow things to simmer down here.
1935:. I recommend that all discussion of this issue be consolidated here, as I see it to be the same argument, with more harm than benefit happening by splitting the discussion across these two articles. In both places, the colorized photo has been re-added to the bottom of the articles. This was done as an interim measure. The end goal is clear consensus being established. --
1769:
2187:
and white - it has resonated in the collective memory for almost 120 years. I approve of using your color version on the page, it is worthy of encyclopedic exhibition. Just not as the infobox introductory image (although I can see your point and partially agree that it would be useful, just not a guarantee of an totally accurate portrayal).
1224:
as if stopped, unlike the image of the first takeoff, in which both props are blurred. As editors, however, it's not up to us to pass judgement on the accuracy of a particular statement made by a reliable source. The statement is quite interesting and worthy of mention, but I'm open to putting it in a note instead of the text.
4059:, a masterpiece of colorization. I am not opposed to colorization in the abstract. Even so, I am firmly in favor of using historic black and white photos as the lead images of encyclopedia articles when high quality color photos are not a available. I am also opposed to walls of text and the bludgeoning of discussions.
3075:... "Let's do a count of hands: Ok, 4 here, 1 there." Consensus is not democratic rule. Consensus has more to do with PRINCIPLE. Which answer conforms best to policies that guide us. Centpaccr presented a SOLID case for colorization. We have a case here which fits neatly within the box they built over there.
4242:, as a major participant in the discussion, seems adamant that it should be open, and it probably should be on the strength of that objection alone, then how about this: the discussion is opened in full, and then the page gets archived. Clears up the talk page while at the same time being good-faith fair.
3010:
And I will be the first to admit that I MADE UP this concept of consensus established in one article carries over to an article debating the same essential situation. The huge difference is that I supported my position with logic. I didn't bother with digging through WP on this because common sense
2540:
And on top of those countless dozens of editors who expressed their consent by way of silence, there are the untold THOUSANDS of readers who saw this image, each one of them with the ability to remove it, or voice objection to it. So consensus in this case arguably involved a rough estimate of maybe
2186:
The historical accuracy of the event includes the iconic photograph, which you also provided in an alerted by less-changed form. This is the image that the world saw which introduced humans to the concept that their species was now skybound. That is the value of leading off the article with the black
1950:
A very nice work of art, the placement near the end of the page or maybe in the gallery, identified in the caption as colorized, seems fine. Should definitely not be the lead image in the infobox though, as it is essentially a faked image (i.e. the color of the sky, why is it such a light blue?). The
1194:
wrote, the point was to make a clear-language statement in the lead. It is commonly understood that "airplane" is a heavier-than-air powered controlled aircraft, and that "successful airplane" describes one that permits fully-controlled flight. The precise details of the significance of the Flyer are
1129:
I think the change to "modern airplane" was intended to indicate that the Wright aircraft was successful and practical. But "modern" in this context seems strange. It gives the misleading impression that there was some previous generation of winged machines which were flying and could be described by
972:
The opening paragraph states that "The Wright Flyer (often retrospectively referred to as Flyer I or 1903 Flyer) was the first successful powered aircraft, designed and built by the Wright brothers". I think that sentence is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean that the Wright Flyer was the first successful
436:
There is no evidence that any of the Wright flights did not require substantial headwinds of a minimum of 35 km/h. Otherwise catapults would not have been necessary at other locations. These questions are not an obssesion, but are the critical historical points. First of all, the introductory section
404:
Keeping it very simple for non-aviation historians: The Wright Flyer did not have the capacity to start ITSELF until late 1906 (or even later), even though you may define catapult started or headwind of more than 35 km/h requiring flights as SELF-SUSTAINED flights. Unfortunately, this fact has always
385:
article for some examples.) The catapult and headwind facts are well-known to aviation historians. Your personal interpretation of those facts disagrees with the overwhelming majority view held by the historians. I look forward to seeing your sources to learn if you have discovered legitimate experts
329:
The Wright flights near Kitty Hawk in 1903 were roughly equivalent to the straight-ahead 15 to 30 second flights of Santos-Dumont in the 14-bis in 1906. Wright flights in 1905 which lasted more than a half hour circling an Ohio field were, by definition, "self-sustained and controlled," regardless of
244:
I was quite amused by the list of "reportedly" items claiming that various others beat the Wright Brothers. If the evidence was there, there would be no need for "reportedly". The charge that it's necessary to maintain some kind of "myth" about the Wrights being first, due to the need of Americans to
3456:
here. This is very simple and clear issue and does not require massive walls of text. Also the massive walls of text are discouraging others from bothering to participate as they know that any posts will be meet with more massive walls of text that are not worth getting drawn into. We have been over
2770:
Consensus on this issue was asserted on 15 September 2014 at 22:04. Every single edit action since that moment has served to quicken and solidify CONSENSUS. There was one sole exception: More than a full year later, at 22:30 on 25 December 2015, Damianmx did a revert to what by that point in time
2550:
I can also provide links to places outside of this article where the colorization issue has been thoroughly discussed. But those threads do not relate near exactly as this one Ilia Chavchavadze case does, so I would be risking branching too far off-track for some here, starting into another wall of
2490:
Please link the consensus, I'm not seeing it. There is a two person discussion on the Chavchavadze talk page, one says it's a fake photo, the other disagrees and that's how it ends, with the photo being used. "Extremely stable" consensus is incorrect if this is what you are pointing to, as this very
2474:
Had I found this earlier, I would not have wasted anyone's time (my own being most important to me). This matter was closed more than six years before I opened it. Based on this long established and extremely stable consensus which has endured throughout that entire period of well over 2,000 days,
2371:
The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is factual when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS.
2133:
what was done. NOT "Well, these aren't the same so let's throw them all away." Wikicommons makes it a breeze to track how a photo has been cropped or color balanced by various editors. It is likewise very easy to keep colorization documentation transparent. Click on the example here, and you can
1918:
a photography article. If life happened in black&white, then we could say that color is a misrepresentation. But knowing that nothing in real life is seen by human eyes in black&white, then it becomes clear that the original unrestored photo is the "misrepresentation". More accurately, it
1305:
by the Wright Flyer from 1903, so the photo is not worth anything as long as you cannot explain the three dark spots in the middle of the plane. Note that the only reliable photo from the Wright brothers flights from December 17, 1903 is the photo from the first 36m flight. Also note that Karl Jatho
1106:
I think your change is good, useful to the unsophisticated reader. It's certainly true that the Wrights flew the first airplane that could carry a man, take off on its own power, fly pretty well in the air with suitable maneuverability, fly a complete circuit and land on the same patch from which it
376:
There's no argument that the Wrights used a catapult beginning in September 1904. It is historical fact. Five-minute circling flights that year and half-hour flights in 1905 demonstrate the Flyer was "self-sustained" and controlled. Regarding witnesses, you're right: there were no "witnesses outside
314:
Regardless of other not well reported or proven motor driven flights (Weisskopf/Pearse), the Wright Flyer always required a substantial speed of wind to start against or in many cases a catapult launch. Therefore, it was not a motor driven "self-sustained and controlled aircraft". The first aircraft
4342:
with key objections about the colorized Wright Flyer. I dove into the uncanny valley of photorealism. Sanna Dullaway has shown us the Promised Land over on the other side of the valley. She literally takes the Dull-away. So am I embarrassed to champion this role of Colorization Moses? No. Not
4312:
of what I've done here, and what it could mean for the long-term future of all of Knowledge (XXG). Credit belongs to Centpacrr with the solid argument presented on the Ilia article, which has endured the test of many years now. All I was doing here was applying that same Consensus to this exactly
4187:
that the current edits include the colorized version. But I hope it is clear to everyone that the reason this didn't end long ago is because of PRINCIPLE. We either follow Consensus, or we don't. Your question is akin to asking a lottery winner if they're satisfied with the check they received.
4052:
the use of a colorized image as the lead image in this article or any other article that is not about colorizing, photo retouching, special effects or closely related articles. It amounts to original research. Go to Google Images, and enter "sand" in the search box. There is wide color variation in
2891:
should apply? I'm a fan of that one as well, but in this case the historian in me (he likes pancakes) sides with the established iconic black and white image. I may owe an apology though, just watched a film set near and on the ocean, and the sky was light blue like your image. So you say the color
2783:
rebuttal. This is a classic example of WP being misapplied. A policy is delineated for one set of circumstances... than an editor attempts an impressive contortionist backbend in an effort to get words to fit into a situation it never applied to. The overarching Policy is NPOV. Colorization is
2660:
I don't see how a decision reached at the biography of Ilia Chavchavadze has foundational relevance to this article about the first successful airplane. The monochrome photo is historic, while any new colorized version is not. If someone's colorized version is discussed widely in the media, then we
2195:
is online and awash with ads. Knowledge (XXG) is where the encyclopedia game is nowadays, and your interest in improving it with good images is commendable. I'm glad to see the colored version, like it a lot, but it's not the iconic and historical photo (and hard to believe that the sky was so pale
2151:
If the attitude was "Well, this isn't a perfect article, so let's trash it and never show it to anyone", then Knowledge (XXG) would never have gone anywhere. But it is a HUGE SUCCESS not because it achieves perfection at any moment in time. Rather, the success is in this PROCESS which facilitates
2121:
If you've done any photo post-processing, including perfectly linear edits from which the original can be recovered, then you know that 10 people will turn in 10 different images. This goes for EVERY SINGLE PHOTO PRESENTED HERE ON WIKIPEDIA. Cropping is one such huge decision that 100 editors can
1670:
I will repeat this as you dont appear to have understood, this is an encyclopedia not a website for historians or researchers all we do is use what reliable sources report. Nothing strange about the rules here, I am sure historians have blogs and discussion boards for this sort of thing but this is
1494:
I'm afraid you're making up Knowledge (XXG) rules as you go along. You don't really get to decide all by yourself what's fake and what's not. You even stated that the first flight photo is reliable, but it was also not published in a newspaper in 1903. Thousands, maybe millions, of photos of famous
1393:
I understand you have your own interpretation of this historical photo. Reliable sources cited in the caption unequivocally identify it. You have given no specific sources, reliable or otherwise, to support your action. If your demand for further "explanation" were followed, you could dictate every
1223:
Gray is unquestionably a reliable source, but after all this time--and having looked at this pic many times--I now wonder at his conclusion when considering the recently raised doubts. The black blobs don't seem to correspond to the engine and prone pilot, and the left propeller can clearly be seen
779:
earlier? well, it's done, the First Flying Machine article ends with the Santos flights so I thought this made a neat little addendum since the crux of the whole First Flying Machines article is speculation amongst the many different experimenters. Anyone want to remove the 14bis debate from First
589:
I had removed the FAI citation because it inaccurately implied that the FAI cites a 1903 Wright brothers flight in its official list of aviation records. A search of the FAI website does not show any such record, and a private email I received from FAI in response to my question states, "The flight
494:
mention the headwind and catapult; they are mentioned in the main Wright brothers article. I am sorry for the mistake. Here is what Wilbur said in 1904 about the Flyer's takeoff speed: "While the new machine lifts at a speed of about 23 miles , it is only after the speed reaches 27 or 28 miles that
420:
a 20+ mph/35+ km/h headwind. It flew in a wind that strong in North Carolina because the brothers did not want to wait another day for calmer conditions; they wanted to finish and travel home for Christmas. They never again piloted a Flyer in such a strong wind. If you have read the entire article,
301:
You're right. Even if some (or even one) of those others beat the Wrights to the punch, nothing came of it, so it doesn't matter. Maybe a better comparison would be Christopher Columbus vs. Leif Ericsson. OK, so the Vikings came here first. But did it matter? No. Columbus' arrival is what mattered,
4257:
As the person who originally hatted the conversation, I oppose unhatting it. Hatting a discussion is an excepted way of handling extremely long discussions, and all an interested user has to do to see it is to click "Show". (They'll. quickly figure out why it was hatted, and if they don't view it,
3126:
Ok, I am going to take a step back for a while to let this breathe. I am absolutely clear on what the next step here needs to be. Explicitly stated above. I hope that when I return, I find that the dough has risen. (First turtles, now baking. Yikes.) Goodbye for the time being. I have built
3037:
The Hard Deck is an inviolable rule. Hence the "Hard". Consensus on Knowledge (XXG) is itself a rigid guideline. But as you point out, we happen to be equipped with the IAR Trump Card. (Post-Jan6, that card needs rebranding.) Let's call it the IAR Joker's Wild. Except I see you three to have
3027:
I actually was ready to concede to Viper's flight of 4 editors as being no match. "B&w infobox it is." That's where I was at. But then I watched that 4-ship formation (you can be the flight leader) dive straight below the consensus hard deck. The extremely unusual case where 1-vs-4 results
2972:
likewise provided tacit support. Through their choice of not editing. Feel free to drop this last category if you don't care to consider potential editors. This leaves you in the rough neighborhood of ~100ish editors who did consent to the colorized infobox. And the total of ACTIVE EDITORS who
2837:
One more comment on the earlier Policy quote: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias..." I readily agreed early on that the colorization process includes INHERENT BIAS. But this goes back to the baby/bathwater point. Comparing which version has
2815:
Here too, yet again, we have Zero Evidence that anyone witnessed this historic event in monochrome. Time to call the ambulance because our heroic gymnasts have broken their backs. We can now clearly see that the b&w infobox is the version in violation of bent WP:UNDUE. Absolutely no one, as
2214:
I am sorry if I came across as attacking anyone. I was actually hoping you all might get a chuckle out of the papercut quip. And I thought that the notion of reverting to old school book versions of encyclopedias would be obviously facetious. What I was trying to do with that last post was zoom
1993:
part of the history of this airplane. The fact that the brothers had someone there to take it, that the flights were meticulously recorded etc. is an integral part of the story and the success. For those who want/need better visualization of the airplane, there is a 3D model available. I think the
1281:
The existing footnotes to reliable sources explicitly identify the photo as the fourth flight of Dec 17, 1903. The first ref, directly to the Library of Congress page containing the photo, is unequivocal. The photo has been well-known to historians for decades, and no reliable source questions its
1053:
To convey the most useful information, this article can be written to make it perfectly clear as to why the Wright Flyer was a landmark achievement. In order to do this, it helps to strip away all of the techno-jargon and give the public a simple and straightforward opening sentence. The article
639:
A revision to correct misleading text is not a symptom of "ownership". I compromised with your objection to removal and restored the citation, but with a more accurate context. You seem to have misunderstood the issue ("...this is not an offical site..."). I pre-Discuss changes if they are clearly
535:
by the media. It's also important to recognize the three Wright Flyers as three distinct machines unto themselve all the process of increased development & knowledge gained by the brothers. Once you understand the step-by-step methodical approach by the Wright Brothers, you can then appreciate
4140:
So, Wright Stuf, your color version now appears in both articles: Wright brothers & Wright Flyer, though not exclusively, nor in a leading position (but pretty darn close in WB). Are you dissatisfied with that outcome? Consensus against your opinion in this discussion is overwhelming. By your
3061:
Here, with this one photo, we are squarely inside the box. Colorization is an issue which impacts hundreds, if not thousands of Knowledge (XXG) images. The problem is that the walls of this particular box are invisible. No policy on colorization has yet been published. Not that I can find, at
503:
Criticism based on the headwind and catapult completely and foolishly disregards the Wrights' pioneering achievements in successful control and effective aerodynamics, which the Flyer represented and which became the basis for all later airplanes. That is the importance of the Flyer, not that its
499:
they began using the catapult. There is no evidence (nor was there a requirement) that any of those takeoffs was done in a wind of 20 mph or more. You also incorrectly conclude that if strong winds were not required, "catapults would not have been necessary at other locations." Wilbur did use the
367:
Where I have to fight battles is not anyones concern. It is not anyones concern to define any of these issues as battles. The facts are: the Wright flyer was never a self-sustained aircraft, because it needed headwind of about 25 miles/hour or a catapult launch until end of 1906 or even later. At
258:
While I wouldn't have worded it quite so strongly in places, I concur with the sentiments. One hundred years from now, there will probably be people who claim that Americans weren't the first to land on the Moon (if they'll even admit Americans ever did in the first place), and some may even cite
3487:
is a thing, and some people do experience life in not "full colour". I don't see why us non-colourblind people would suddenly complain about being restricted to a black and white picture, especially such a well known one. I've always found colourisations to be more interesting from the "computer
3088:
It is absolutely clear that the proper course of action is for all 5 of us to regroup. ABOVE the Hard Deck. This means revert the Infobox back to color, and conform to long-established Consensus. Any notion of "local consensus" grates against the principle of Broad Consensus. Which all of us
2081:
There is not much room for freewheeling when it comes to how tan sand is, how blue the sky is, how brown wood is, how dark clothing is. And when it comes to the flyer itself, we have the rebuilt aircraft in living color, along with several exacting replicas which enable us to verify the correct
1547:
As long as you are making your own rules for reliability, we will be in a conflict. How about just following the rules used by historians? The photo in question is definitely not reliable using the usual rules, as it was not published in time and as it shows something that does not look like the
1006:
No I don't think the comma does answer my second question. I think people could read it both ways - regardless of the correct grammatical meaning - and that make it ambiguous. It could easily be re-worded so that the meaning can only be taken one way and surely that is preferable? As to my first
474:
The 1903 machine used no catapult, the majority of the flights of 1904(May-September) were without catapult, not all flights of 1905 were with catapult, Wilbur's Hudson-Fulton flights used no catapults just the launching rail cause he had no wheels. Catapults or no catapults, they don't make the
126:
Every flight of the aircraft on December 14 and 17 -- under mildly insane conditions on the 17th -- ended in a forced landing (two on one flight when it bounced) or a crash. Also, turns were not demonstrated. In 1904, the Wrights found they needed redesign and new techniques to fly successfully,
4553:
Nice image. I can imagine a small gallery near the bottom of pages of very historic black-and-white photographs featuring colorized images, although original research proponents can easily oppose such a thing. Both this and the colorized takeoff image give added historical presence, although as
2374:
These are highly presumptuous comments. "Historically accurate"--according to what reliable source? "Tan", "brown" and "blue" are the most generic of descriptions of sand, wood and sky, but are no substitute for the undetermined reality of a given scene. You don't know if the sand was FFDAB9 or
2085:
A similar principle holds when converting a 2-D source image to '3-D" stereographic. Guesses need to be made. But these are highly educated guesses which are based in fact. We have a solid understanding of how to keep the manufactured output true to reality. We KNOW what this moment in time
2060:
was broken off. To fill this in, I had to make the editorial choice of what to put there. Every single dab of the "cloning tool" is an editorial choice, deciding where to repeat pixels in order to remove damage. I made countless hundreds, probably over a thousand such fabrication edits which
880:
There is no evidence, no filmed images, no witness, no credible document on the internet, no documentary on Discovery Channel, nothing to certify that the Flyer reproduction has ever performed a successful test flight, more precisely a flight able to replicate the original Dec. 17 1903 flights.
692:
This article is about the Wright Flyer, and yet a substantial section is dedicated to a completely different flying machine. There seems to be no good reason for this, especially since the 14 Bis is only one of many "rivals" to the Flyer's throne. For example, Richard Pearse's flying machine of
514:
The Wright Flyer did use a headwind to gain sufficient airspeed to take off from level ground at Kitty Hawk, but did so under its own engine power. If you disagree with the FAI statement, I suggest you file an objection with them. If you feel the wording in this article's introduction should be
2641:
Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange. The consensus in this present discussion, so far, is to keep the historical and iconic black and white image. Besides, the image you're pointing to as the
1062:
That's it. No gobbledygook about heavier-vs-lighter than air, 3-axis control, piloted, powered, etc. All of that, which is technically accurate, is encapsulated in "modern airplane". THIS is what's important. This is what people care about. And the lede can be satisfying to all because the
719:
I agree with this. However, whenever specific names of other aircraft are included, people usually add more detail and more names, and the text re-grows to unruly size. So I also suggest that instead of a separate shorter section mentioning specific names of other early aircraft, a sentence be
2908:
Wright Stuf, in your first response to my reversions to the black&white historic photograph, you ended by writing: "The end goal is clear consensus being established." That has happened. One editor favors the colorized image to be leading or exclusive: Wright Stuf. Four do not: RandyKryn,
758:
The 14-Bis section was copied and pasted into this article from its own article. I would not recommend adding the section to the First flying machine article, which is supposed to be only a list, without pro and con "arguments" in narrative sections. If the 14-bis section is deleted from this
530:
Pytor, if you say the Wright Flyer's flights(1903-1905) didn't have sufficient witnesses then the same could be triply said for Whitehead & Richard Pearse. The Wrights had viable & credible witnesses(not to mention back issue newspapers) but didn't seek out mainstream press after they
453:
This preoccupation with headwinds is baffling. An aircraft that can take off and rise above ground effect —with zero groundspeed because of a headwind—is still in powered flight. In fact, large birds—which are the very model which people have classically treated as the raison d'être for human
4484:
by me, as violations of Knowledge (XXG) Policy. I maintain hope for a reasonable, rational resolution. It is up to us as a community to Impeach the actions which have happened by mob rule here. Throughout the entire discussion, from very beginning to bitter end, I persistently insisted on
1366:
Sorry to see that your activism is not open to arguments from flight experts and historians that rate it as highly doubtful. As long as there is no explanation for the three black spots the photo cannot be seen as reliable. If you can explain the three black spots, things may be different...
1282:
identification. It is emphatically not from 1908 in France, or any other time and place other than North Carolina on the stated date. I invite comment from editor Schily, who challenges the identification, so we may restore the photo's unquestioned identificaton without further reversions.
2491:
discussion above overturns that non-established consensus. Maybe a full RfC is needed, or maybe I'm missing the consensus you're talking about, but as of now the colored photo, no matter how interesting and reimaginingable informative, should not be used in the infobox per this discussion.
3339:
Again, similar to the Wright flight, the colorized version (if it's colorized and not an original) gives more information but is not the historical iconic black and white photo which is also a Knowledge (XXG) feature image. Colorization may have its place, and on the other hand there is
1306:
did already fly 18m on August 18, 1903 and 60m in November 1903 and that Gustav Weißkopf did fly 800m to 2.4km with several tests on August 14, 1901 already. I however have no problems if the subtitle for this photo explains why there is doubt on it's authenticity for December, 17 1903.
555:
Since I can't find it, let me post this here: "The Aeronautical Board, which conducted the official tests of the 1909 Flyer, were Lt. Frank Lahm, Lt. George Sweet, Maj. Charles Saltzman, Maj. George Squier, Capt. Charles Chandler, Lt. Benjamin Foulois and Lt. Frederick Humphreys." From
4141:
logic, that would mean the historic photo in the other article you referenced should now be changed back to b&w. But I'll repeat: consensus in one article does not dictate a decision in another. You can use consensus elsewhere to support your argument, but not to command a result.
470:* Even today aircraft get weather reports(wind speed, direction of wind, pressure etc the same as the Wrights did) before taking off from airports. Aircraft still take advantage of wind conditions after all these decades since 1903. Observe next time you take a flight from an airport.
3636:
against using the colorized image in the infobox, and leaning toward excluding it from the article altogether. There's also no interest in a poll at this time. Given that the colorization is your own work, you also have a clear bias towards using the image that could be considered a
4297:
I am not embarrassed by a single word I've posted. I see my position in that discussion to be extremely strong, perfectly in line with long established consensus, and in line with every single Knowledge (XXG) Policy I am aware of.* I did build Walls of Text, but when Policy is
2795:"All encyclopedic content on Knowledge (XXG) must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
259:
Jules Verne as proof! The fact of the matter is that their first flight and the developments that followed changed the world - even if they really weren't first, they were the ones that inspired all the others that follwed them, not these then-unknowns that are still unknown. -
127:
achieving these goals at the end of the 1904 program and even more decisively in 1905. The 1903 Flyer was a magnificent test vehicle, but its mythical status has obscured its proper place in the incredible developmental program leading to the Wrights mastery of flight in 1905.
1965:
Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared, whereas colorization imparts an appearance which the photograph never had, misrepresenting it. In effect, colorizing is an editorialization, contrary to neutrality policy. You said:
2073:
when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS. It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is
4313:
parallel case, only now being applied to a photo of iconic historical status. This one gap between these two parallels was the reason for leaving the Monk Subsection uncollapsed. Because that very short example cuts straight to the heart of the question we all face here:
2046:
manipulate brightness values, concentrating on hue. This way, you can take this colorized photo, do a quick single step desaturization, and return to the black&white image with essentially no alteration. Brightness, including the lightness of the sky, is preserved.
1988:
Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out. By contrast, the black & white photo or lightly edited versions of it faithfully represent the original document. This original photo
2695:
greater historical importance than some obscure guy who did some things. December 17, 1903, was a SINGULAR MOMENT in human history. Down to the split second, this photo has captured the singularity: The very start of humanity's first airplane flight. Nevertheless,
2778:
Centpacrr might as well have closed off his Talk post with, "Speak now, or forever hold you peace." As you all know, I happen to see the established consensus to fit with the basic principles which guide us here as Knowledge (XXG) editors. And this brings us to the
4276:
I am not opposed to Collapsing the vast majority of an extremely long discussion that most will have no interest in. I went along with what I saw to be a legitimate reason for doing so: Help make the section far more accessible by leaving only two tips of the
1239:
Thank you. I additionally realized later that nobody else is in the picture except for the three figures. If it was in-flight wouldn't there be at least one person (Orville) running after the plane? I suppose Orville (and possible other(s)) could have dashed
2167:
So the bigger question to ask is why are you here on Knowledge (XXG) at all. With this attitude you're championing, I would expect that your encyclopedia of choice would be World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. Dealing with paper cuts as an acceptable risk.
454:
flight—instinctively generally start off from level ground into any headwind or breeze immediately available; the stronger the headwind, they happier they are likely for it; and no reasonable person stands around and laughs and points at their aeolian crutch.
2887:"The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500." That's pretty cool, did you make that up? Can't find in on the net. Of course there is no consensus here to include the colorization as the lead image, although it too is pretty cool. Are you saying
4258:
it's actually saving the OP some unwitting embarrassment.) I'll note for the record that I did not close the discussion, which ostensibly prevents additions or changes from being made. When the OP is ready to continue the discussion, he is welcome to do so.
4168:
to agree with you that consensus over there would not apply here. Except that the situation there is the same in all important ways but one. That image has no iconic historical status. And this is exactly why the monk was selected, to help fill this one
2892:
values in the coloring process read it out as light blue? Interesting. You've done some great work on Knowledge (XXG), and it's obvious how much you believe in the outstandingness of the colorized image. I like how you fight until the last bell rings.
605:
I see nothing on the FAI site that states this is not an offical site of the organization. I'm certainly not going to base my analysis on a letter that's not verifiable. Please gain a consensus to remove this, rather than continue to remove first. -
4363:
the end. AGF. I asked anyone to provide a reason for why Full Collapse was preferable to my Tips Exposed Collapse. NOT ONE of three editors offered any justification. I do remain open to the possibility that legitimate justification does exist.
2090:. And we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that what he saw was a lot closer to what I posted than it did to the historic b&w photo. Once again, this is an article focused on this event. It is not an article about historically significant photos. --
2420:
I need to apologize yet again. For wasting everyone's time here with my "wall of text". I had expressed my expectation that this must have been an issue resolved long ago. I just now found this to be true. Please see new subsection below.
2799:
Well we KNOW perfectly well what John T. Daniels' POV was at this instant. It was asserted early on here that he watched this moment in Living Color. The focus of this article is on the event. So our bent over version of WP:NPOV actually
2771:
had become a very stable situation. NO rationale was presented. Damianmx was promptly reverted. And THAT WAS THE END OF THAT. It is now more than 5 years later. Countless 10s of THOUSANDS of people have weighed in on the matter... by
206:
Because nobody else corrected the sentence I did it myself. You are welcome change it to another reference, as long as it is not presented as an absolute truth without a reference to which institution you use to back up an absolute truth.
2117:
YES. I readily agree. The healthy approach, once someone offers an alternative colorization, is to then debate which one is more accurate. NOT "...well then, let's throw them all away." The proverbial colorized baby/bathwater adage.
3105:
And yes, I originated the Turtle 500 thing. I've probably taken all these analogies way too far. I sure hope you all like Top Gun. I was thinking that was a safe one, seeing how it is an aviation page which brought us all together.
116:
Much of it is vacuous. Even the 1905 Flyer has serious flaws, but it flew, really flew and the Wrights were there first, building a meticulous, systematic, thoughtful, creative, and persistent program to spectacular and unprecedented
2973:
support the consensus just today JUMPED FROM 4 UP TO 9 now. Because while the 5 of us have been editing this Talk page, NONE of us have switched that infobox back to b&w. All 5 of us here have cast our votes by way of inaction.
2766:
their objection is what created the consensus. Centpacrr presented an extremely strong argument for why the proper action was to keep the colorized version, and to this day NO ONE has replied there to refute those excellent points.
1894:
was the prompt removal of the colorized photo presented in the infobox. This 1903 event happened in color. It was experienced and witnessed in color. The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a
3051:
When all other Policy fails, and you have justification to take an action which results in improvement to an article, THEN you have license to IAR. It is not to be used lightly without the sound justification for an out of the box
4337:
It is a question that was answered in September of 2014, and reaffirmed hundreds of times since then. And here with the monk, it is clearly shown that colorization has the potential to fly with iconic images as well. I actually
3433:
Assume good faith, as this discussion has resulted in some good edits elsewhere, and to some editors it is not a petty detail. Massive trouts need plenty of water to swim in, and Knowledge (XXG) discussions like this are all wet.
696:
In short, I propose that the 14 Bis section be deleted and replaced with a much shorter section naming some other flying machines of the period without getting into too much debate about who was first. Please add your opinions
2872:
Give it up. Drop the stick. You don't have anything close to a local consensus here at this article. Some sympathetic thoughts have been directed your way, and some very stiff opposition. So the result is: no colorized photo.
368:
least there were not sufficient independent witnesses outside the US at any time to see such a self-sustained flight of the Wright brothers. That is quite simple to understand and sources will be given within the next days.
2823:. Consensus needed to be dredged from an obscure corner of the Project. Sufficient. But not ideal. So I once again point to Option 3 above, for everyone wishing to accomplish a reversal of long-established Consensus. --
3725:
with WP:NOR. This ball is in your court. I await your votes. Feel free to LIE up there if you simply want to get me to shut up. But my remaining months of 2021 will be spent knowing that I left here with my integrity
1156:
I've reverted back to the original sentence per the previous discussion. "Heavier-than-air powered aircraft" is significant, because it was the first such aircraft, not just airplane, though obviously it was such too. -
2400:
This discussion is steered completely off-track. This is a search for consensus about replacing/including one image. We don’t want walls of text, nor lecturing of other editors about what Knowledge (XXG) is about.
3850:
856:
I took out a paragraph from the lead section about the aircraft's difficult handling characteristics, as there was no such discussion in the article body, and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, per
4521:
1070:. The previous edit was not. Rubber-band powered planes were "successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft". And Sam Langley did a much larger "successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft" in 1896 (see photo
3604:
to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to
3699:
As for simmering down, I myself have not detected any signs of boilover. We have been engaged here in respectful, well-reasoned argumentation. I see the merit of your side, and I went so far as to map out
1578:
We do have are own rules on reliability and it is not our place to investigate and do original research, if the image comes from a reliable source then we take the information provided with it as reliable.
835:
article. This makes for good talk, it's not going to change anything I feel as this argument was settled decades ago. Ok without much more adieu, there you have it , I made the change. 02:43, 14 June 2010
3787:"This image was restored by User:Wright Stuf in November, 2018 using GIMP, and then manually colorized on February 5, 2021, also using GIMP...John T. Daniels (restoration & colorization by Wright Stuf)
377:
the US" to the flights. That was a question people raised in 1906. But it is not 1906 anymore. Today, photographic and documentary proof is easily available. Dozens of historical photographs in the U.S.
2272:
Struck my comment, I wasn't taking you in good faith. Humor sometimes doesn't come across when written, now that I know it was written in good faith the papercut mention is pretty good. And I looked up
4448:. I will leave it to you all to resolve these MAJOR issues. I will be glad to quickly return just to issue an apology if anyone shows me that I dropped the AGF ball. So goodbye y'all yet again. --
3961:
Why would we want to add a picture of a burning monk to an article about the Wright Flyer? And how does that excuse you of a COI for promoting an image of the Flyer that you (apparently) colorized?
3028:
with the solo pilot flying off into the sunset, while the commanding officer of the four opposed editors is in the awkward position of writing letters of condolences to the next of kin for the four.
2804:
that the color image be presented. To argue otherwise would require evidence that he was totally colorblind. But then the person behind him witnessed this in full color. So that angle fails too.
1107:
took off. Those are necessary characteristics of a useful airplane, one that is not a toy or an impractical experiment. However, its shape is still not modern, because its rudders are in the front.
2042:
of exactly how light or dark the sky was, because this is what black&white photography captures best: brightness. Cognizant of the historical importance of the photo, I made the effort to
3681:
has already weighed in. If his vote was for monochrome, then my (in)action would require only two more of you. (I would also like you to clarify on exactly where you stand, Randy. One word.)
2939:
I have been editing Knowledge (XXG) for an extremely long time. I have done multiple visits to Knowledge (XXG) Headquarters, including the obligatory photo standing next to the Puzzle Ball.
2155:
If John T. Daniels had taken a color photo, NO ONE here would be arguing for the deletion of that to replace it with black&white. The crux of these objections have more to do with the
4212:
Everyone here knows the direction Knowledge (XXG) Policy points us toward. I am exiting now with full faith in that process. In this principle. My parting comment, believe it or not...
3410:
Hello, people, a massive discussion like this over a colourised or black and white picture seems entirely unecessary - its a goddamn picture, not a question of life and death. A massive
1597:
So you believe that you get real money when you receive two banknotes with the same serial numbers as long as you receive them from a "reliable person"? This is not how science works...
3819:
above. Sanna Dullaway is the artist who colorized that. Freakin PTSD inducing, I imagine. If I knew of any other image which could speak so powerfully, I would have used that one. --
3735:
It is all of you who are persistently refusing to follow long established Consensus. As highlighted at the top of that subsection, such behavior simply does not fly on Knowledge (XXG).
2791:
But let's say that we are Olympic caliber rhythmic gymnasts, and we wish to attempt the backbend anyway... Let's go for it. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from WP:NPOV:
3414:
for everyone seems well deserved. If this much discussion can't solve such a petty detail, then it's time for a !vote or something else, cause clearly this is a waste of time. Cheers,
4015:
A most curious angle. But yes, I do admit that I'm heavily biased toward the color image I made. But you can also find here where I've expressed TOTAL OPENNESS to having that image
3071:
Bottom line: The totality of policies we have to go by show that you three are the ones below the Hard Deck here. I don't know where the fourth wingman is right now. Consensus is
953:
that honour. I know this discussion comes up frequently, but given the evidence, can the introduction be changed to something like "believed to be the first" or "amongst the first"?
1754:
720:
included in an existing section, or even in the introduction, to say simply that other claims exist for 'first airplane', and make a link in that sentence to the Knowledge (XXG)
3721:
to seek any Policy guidance which might have a hope of reversing the longstanding Consensus. FURTHERMORE, if you read my previous post, then you know that my position conforms
3344:. Iconic images align more with Ansel Adams (although he did play with the shading and other aspects to create his artistic photos), they have their own history and notability.
2064:
Knowing that you are accepting of editorial choices within the realm of black&white restoration, let's revisit your objection to editorialization in the conversion to color:
4485:
WP:Consensus to be followed. To this day, that has not been done. Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Đức has lit himself on fire in the hope that his protest will awaken an appeal to
4007:
comment above. COI is a curious argument to inject here. Every single change made to Knowledge (XXG) carries that same bias. The principle you are arguing for here is that:
3302:, the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire. We are faced with making the editorial choice on which of these two images to present in that Knowledge (XXG) article:
507:
Santos-Dumont was a more significant inventor than the Wright brothers in the specialty of lighter-than-air flight but not heavier-than-air. His first fixed-wing aircraft, the
82:, so in the interest of avoiding redundancy, I have removed that section in this page. I think it would be appropriate to move the part about 14-bis into the article about the
3789:
If you're referring to a different image that you want added to the article, I missed that completely. If so, please make it clear what images you're discussing here. Thanks.
1250:
an otherwise reliable source says. If we think an author was drinking the day he made some dubious conclusion, we're perfectly allowed to ignore it as unreliable and even as
3690:
As for COI, the colorization artist who I am seeking your feedback on is Sanna Dullaway. I am not her. I have never met her. I wouldn't know what she looked like if I did.
2372:
It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is historically accurate. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here.
1260:
I undid the summary reversion because it was based on nothing more than a subjective "better", and it said nothing to address the edit summaries giving reasons for each edit.
742:
section. The article is about the Wright Flyer not the 14bis or whether it flew properly(it didnt !). I don't know what it is with this Santos crowd continuing this nonsense.
3062:
least. So we must do our best gauging of the walls by using other methods. And I was actually SHOCKED to find Consensus established in a case which perfectly matches ours.
1424:
The reliability cannot be verified unless the sources would be based on non-fakeable facts. It would be e.g. a reliable photo it it was printed in a newspaper from 1903.
2726:- Another approach would be for you all to go to that Talk page where six+ years of consensus has gotten entrenched... and work there to get this precedent re-evaluated.
2221:, impacting Knowledge (XXG) across the board. And since photo colorization has been around a lot longer than Knowledge (XXG), we could expect that our topic at hand was
2704:. The issue is not big vs small. It is wright vs wrong. 'Right', in this case, meaning being in accord with established Knowledge (XXG) principles. More succinctly,
2082:
colors. This was done with the level of care that meets encyclopedic standards of presenting factual info. If it did not, then I would not have presented it as such.
1500:
3038:
pulled out the Joker here. Absolutely nothing I posted before was done with any thought to IAR. It is a card we all have, yes. But not one to be played lightly.
1919:
under-represents what actually happened. It is for this reason that the better version to present in the infobox is the colorized photo. I would suggest that...
945:, which I think is safe to say is a fairly authoritative publication, has stated that it no longer considers the Wright Flyer the world's first powered aircraft
775:
I actually just moved it to the First Flying Machine entry after spending 1/2 re-typing before I read your response. I didn't know it was in the 14 bis article.
2564:
Now those who may not like what has been established here on Knowledge (XXG), I'd like to suggest that the new fix for the Wright Flyer article is actually the
988:
The comma after "first successful powered aircraft" answers your second question. You already answered your first question but your answer of "wrong" is wrong.
4343:
at all. This is a movement. A movement of what Knowledge (XXG) can become. Peter Jackson is the Jesus on how to do colorization with encyclopedic accuracy (
2811:"...each article ... represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint..."
1744:
1734:
2066:
If this process is done in a freewheeling manner, then I would READILY AGREE WITH YOU. "Was his shirt blue or brown? I am going to take a random guess."
96:
Agreed. However, a reference to the 'first flying machines' article would be a good idea to make it clear where such discussion should go. I've added it.
2215:
out to the bigger picture. MUCH larger than just these two articles / one photo being discussed. My point was that what is at issue here is actually a
315:
according to this definition was flown and recognized worldwide (of course just first "european" airflight in the English Knowledge (XXG)) by Brazilian
2738:
Randy: "Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange."
3713:
ME request policy clarification? Consensus on this issue was settled a very long time ago. In favor of the edit I have been advocating. For the
2983:
9 editors. Plus ~100 other editors. Ignore this if you want. But it is a HARD FACT. Consensus on our issue is established fact. 6+ years now.
173:
that's a good replica of the 1909 Wright Military Flyer at the Air Force Museum Dayton Ohio. The real one has been in the Smithsonian since 1911.
4010:"Every single edit done on Knowledge (XXG) should be REVERTED, because the user who posted the change is heavily biased toward their new words."
3891:
and you'll find the iconic photo of the burning monk, where the photog was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. I found Sanna's colorized version here:
1755:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120426044500/http://news.ncdcr.gov/2009/12/10/full-size-replica-wright-flyer-featured-at-nc-transportation-museum/
1838:
2719:- Find a counterexample which fits the parallel outlined above. If you succeed in finding a case where consensus went the other direction,
4523:
File:Wright Flyer - Wilbur Wright clings to his damaged flying machine after unsuccessful 1st trial 1903Dec14 (colorized by Jared Enos).jpg
3497:
3423:
1906:"A link to colorized version for the curious would be ok, but misrepresentation in the article not ok for most famous aviation photograph."
1855:
it was "a bit crude, even by the standards of the day." The description mentions the crudeness of the ignition, the cooling and fuel flow.
1262:
891:
4472:
was my proposal for how to properly collapse the Colorized Photo section above in order to minimize unnecessary clutter while maintaining
2607:
2113:: "Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out."
1724:
1875:
1758:
1063:
elaborate descriptions have already been stated at the end. No need to clutter up the intro statement. Plain English works just fine.
1923:"It is those who are more interested in the history of photography who can do the one extra click to find the black&white version."
1254:. I say "unnotable" because any otherwise reliable author can have a bad day, and that's not on-topic for the article. If there were
804:
perhaps at the conclusion of the article. Im thinking of moving the section to there. It's better worthy of discussion and dialogue at
4188:"So what if the IRS took 90%? You still pocket 10%!" NO. That's not only dissatisfying. If you read the tax code, you'll see that
910:
The artifacts shown in the picture could not have flown on STS-51-L. On that flight the Challenger Shuttle was destroyed on liftoff.
704:
4302:, it seems like an appropriate reason to build such walls, ideally with the ultimate result in the long run serving as the basis for
3629:
2723:
the colorization, then we will NO LONGER BE IN A STABLE STATE here. It will be conflicting consensus which will need to be resolved.
1837:
Was it crude by the standards of the day? 12 hp is pretty strong for 1903. Was it heavy? Not fuel efficient? What makes it crude?
140:
Orville and Wilbur weren't licensed pilots, couldn't that have contributed a great deal to the high crash rate in the beginning? -Me
3198:
2034:
grayscale. So even if the hue is off, it is certainly closer than the black&white image. But you specifically asked about the
1764:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
942:
78:
already has its own article, and need not be attacked in this article. The part about 14-bis is already found in the article on the
3606:
973:
powered aircraft in the world (which isn't true), or does it mean it was the first one designed and built by the Wright brothers?
348:
Please provide reliable sources for any claims you add to the article, or they WILL be removed as OR/POV. The issue is covered in
3894:
3217:
of text. A very clear consensus of "No, thank you" has emerged in the above discussion. This needs to end now, before it becomes
1910:
That would be a sound argument for an article which placed its focus on the photography aspect instead of the event itself. The
926:
574:
3201:) is very blatantly pushing their personal point of view (PoV) on Knowledge (XXG), having first started messing with this image
1503:
have been taken, but not published at the time. They're not all fake. Learn about Knowledge (XXG) rules for reliable sources at
946:
2624:
1458:
You have brought nothing reliably sourced to this discussion – no sources at all, in fact. You don't have any leverage here.
3299:
800:
this is a good section but it doesn't belong in an article on the Flyer. It certainly could be inserted into the article on
738:
yes, I didn't see your proposal up top here and left a similar effort at the bottom. Move it!, yes. It would go fine in the
3704:
proper paths forward for anyone who wishes to contest the Consensus which was established in 2014 over on the Ilya article.
823:
I deleted this section from the Wright Flyer entry. It is totally and irrevocably out of place here in the entry about the
3613:
Everything I have been advocating here conforms with WP:NOR completely. That's NOR as published. Not NOR as imagined. --
2295:
245:
claim it, looks to be the opposite - that America-haters are desperate for something to take away the "Wright"-ful claim.
3588:
2568:. No one even need *click* anymore to view the historical b&w photo. It's now been set up where a reader need only
1745:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081121024116/http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/presskits/wrightbrothers/wbephotos.cfm
1735:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081121024116/http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/presskits/wrightbrothers/wbephotos.cfm
1258:
reliable authors that supported him in that conclusion, then maybe it would be notable to mention in a note or something.
1085:"They built on the works of Sir George Cayley dating from 1799, when he set forth the concept of the modern airplane..."
2909:
Ariadacapo, Binksternet, and DonFB. You have misunderstood consensus on Knowledge (XXG). The Knowledge (XXG) policy on
1806:
4436:
Ok, I have said my piece. I will leave here once more. Hopefully on a more permanent basis. I have raised a flag on
279:
Regrettably, we already have our share of dim-witted Americans who don't believe their countrymen landed on the moon.
3374:
Two different articles, with no correlation. Very different historic photos. I'm not participating in this sideshow.
2888:
899:
831:
article, though it might not belong there either. But for those who want or care to debate this issue go over to the
2027:
The question at hand here is whether addition to these articles as factual is appropriate and helpful, or damaging.
1852:
2184:
Attack the ball, not the player. Treating other editors with respect is one of the five pillars of Knowledge (XXG).
1880:
38:
4473:
4304:
3210:
3205:
shortly after creating their account. We see here classic PoV-pushing behaviour in responding to criticism not by
2234:
I just now looked it up, and apparently World Book DOES still exist. And maybe pigs have begun to fly as well. --
1842:
1748:
1738:
1619:
You continue to rely on your own analysis rather than the published analysis of historians. You have no footing.
3150:
4415:
An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted? --
3493:
3419:
3306:
2857:
I expect everyone here is perfectly clear that the words in quotes above do not fly here on Knowledge (XXG). --
1266:
895:
666:
Sorry I changed the lead before I noticed this discussion, I have simplified the statement to be more factual.
557:
1718:
4286:
An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted?
4102:, if only we had a better, more realistic looking colorization effort. Please correct me if that's mistaken.
3023:, I'm not here to fight. But then again, I won't refuse to engage, like a wussified Maverick post-flat spin.
1647:
You continue to use strange own reliability rules instead of using the reliability rules used by historians.
962:
4344:
4055:
3393:
3173:
2299:
1797:
1702:
1071:
1012:
978:
475:
aircraft fly and stay in the air. The machine has to be able to do that from the efficiency of it's design.
3218:
3153:! A colorized picture always scream "fake". It should be avoided. This is an encyclopedia, not a fantasy.--
3084:
What you four amount to is, "Let's reinvent the wheel." But we were handed a wheel which works quite well.
2509:
In that article, there are a minimum of 4 editors who directly weighed in on the topic: Paul Barlow (edit
914:
887:
700:
578:
562:
3479:
On second look, it looks like User:Wright Stuf might be (inadvertantly, though can't be sure) engaging in
3158:
1698:
922:
884:
This text should be removed: "Although the aircraft had previously made several successful test flights"
708:
4444:
4438:
2665:
in which minor issues that are peripheral to the topic are shed due to their lack of central importance.
4543:
4496:
4453:
4420:
4369:
4224:
4197:
4128:
4024:
3928:
3824:
3768:
3618:
3548:
3379:
3329:
3286:
3226:
3192:
3132:
3111:
2968:
Countless dozens of other editors supported it. Then I went further to explain that 5-figures worth of
2878:
2862:
2843:
2828:
2670:
2632:
2583:
2480:
2462:
2426:
2337:
2263:
2239:
2173:
2139:
2095:
1940:
1860:
1781:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1676:
1624:
1584:
1496:
1463:
1329:
1112:
1034:
1008:
993:
974:
866:
671:
316:
212:
197:
3480:
1968:"The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a technology limitation"
1725:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131219025215/http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/military/615.html
1701:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1190:, can you please explain why you reverted this change? ("per the previous discussion" isn’t clear…) As
2468:
This is exactly parallel to our case here with the Wright Flyer article focused on the event, and the
876:
The 2003 reproduction of 1903 Wright Brothers' plane has never replicated the claimed flight from 1903
4559:
4247:
3439:
3363:
3349:
3011:
prevails here. "Do we need to reinvent the wheel every time we need to get rolling?" Obviously not.
2897:
2647:
2496:
2410:
2307:
2282:
2201:
2053:: "Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared..."
2003:
1956:
1759:
http://news.ncdcr.gov/2009/12/10/full-size-replica-wright-flyer-featured-at-nc-transportation-museum/
1200:
721:
570:
349:
83:
75:
4412:
Here is your personalized TLDR recap (asked rhetorically, as I do not expect to be back to discuss):
3815:
I am preparing to exit this discussion. All that is needed is 2 more votes for 'monochrome' in the
3717:
I was supporting before finding Centpaccr's solid rebuttal. Because of that established consensus,
1998:’s hard work producing it and good faith addition, does not really belong to the article at all. --
111:
An anonymous editor added the following to the opening. It is clearly NPOV, and I have reverted it:
4527:
Wilbur Wright clings to his damaged flying machine after an unsuccessful trial on December 14, 1903
4065:
3531:
3489:
3453:
3415:
3266:
2734:. But I have no idea how Knowledge (XXG) Policy comes into being. Rub Jimmy's head or something.
1094:
455:
3206:
2662:
2448:- Keeping the black & white historical version in the article which is focused on photography.
2149:
What I have been advocating here is perfectly in line with how Knowledge (XXG) on the whole works.
4308:
which can avert the need for any such walls on any other Talk page in the future. I am actually
3601:
3389:
3296:
I am going to ask everyone here for a momentary reset. Let's forget about the Wright Brothers...
3258:
3169:
2807:
Now let's scroll down to UNDUE. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from that section:
2598:
Here I was being lazy again, saying "maybe five figures worth of people". The precise number is
2461:- Article focused on photography/photographer keeping the historical black & white version:
2030:
Sky lightness has been called into question. One thing we can be certain of is that the sky was
1712:
1648:
1598:
1549:
1425:
1368:
1307:
958:
841:
813:
785:
747:
541:
480:
459:
303:
246:
178:
148:
The wright flyer is currenly on display it's own gallery, so the picture is wrong.... -NWeinthal
4505:<!-- If this one post remains unmolested, I will not be back here for the remainder of 2021.
3411:
3214:
2819:
Let's close here with a point I expect WE CAN ALL AGREE ON: The fundamental underlying issue is
2780:
1782:
1728:
3895:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4740894482/adding-color-to-the-most-iconic-photos-in-history
3888:
3816:
3672:
3254:
3154:
3090:
2953:: "Consensus on the content of Knowledge (XXG) articles is achieved by editors, not readers."
2456:
2069:
The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is
446:
438:
406:
369:
320:
47:
17:
2910:
858:
4539:
4492:
4449:
4416:
4391:
4365:
4263:
4239:
4220:
4193:
4124:
4020:
3966:
3924:
3858:
3820:
3794:
3764:
3646:
3614:
3544:
3515:
3375:
3325:
3282:
3262:
3250:
3222:
3188:
3128:
3107:
2874:
2858:
2839:
2824:
2750:
who decided to tacitly agree with no one outside of these two editors objecting. Those two
2685:
2666:
2628:
2579:
2476:
2422:
2402:
2366:
2333:
2291:
2259:
2235:
2169:
2135:
2091:
1995:
1936:
1856:
1672:
1652:
1620:
1602:
1580:
1553:
1459:
1429:
1372:
1325:
1311:
1162:
1108:
1030:
989:
950:
862:
861:. However, I think the article could be expanded with discussion of handling and stability.
667:
633:
611:
357:
264:
231:
208:
193:
131:
87:
4386:
TLDR. So if in a later response I miss what you said above, like I did before, that's why.
3638:
2711:
That is to say, what is 'good' for the tiny case must also be good for our ginormous case.
1789:
625:
4555:
4243:
4146:
3678:
3543:
As for colorblindness, I had addressed that long ago here. Just scroll up a long ways. --
3484:
3466:
3435:
3359:
3345:
3278:
3246:
3020:
2922:
2893:
2681:
2643:
2575:
2569:
2552:
2492:
2469:
2406:
2380:
2303:
2302:
pages with hopefully an adequate caption. They look good, and are relevant to the topics.
2278:
2254:
I even snuck a racism joke in there. I probably should apologize for that too. There is
2197:
2110:
2087:
2021:
2017:
1999:
1975:
1952:
1911:
1822:
1512:
1399:
1349:
1287:
1229:
1196:
1135:
918:
764:
729:
645:
595:
566:
520:
426:
391:
382:
335:
302:
which is why he still primarily gets the credit (or blame, depending on one's viewpoint).
284:
79:
4532:
3595:
3569:
3458:
1504:
4347:
4123:
toward continual improvement (see "philosophical question" & "Turtle 500" above.) --
2964:
My statement was perfectly clear that Consensus over there was established by 4 editors.
2714:
I will recommend 2 strategies for anyone wishing to overturn this established precedent:
2452:
Here are the articles from where our issue here was discussed and settled back in 2014:
1671:
not that place. So I think as this is going nowhere we can end this discussion, thanks.
1029:
I added "heavier-than-air" to the first sentence to meet your quite reasonable request.
122:
The same editor also added this. It brings up some good points, but it needs reworking:
4535:
astounding colorization effort on Saturday, done by Jared Enos (posted Jun 7, 2015)...
4216:
4060:
3127:
another wall big enough to satisfy DT. That's definitely reason to take a breather. --
3006:
Now you are making stuff up. I will be tickled pink if you can support that statement.
1884:
1324:
Poppycock. The photo is firmly established as 1903. Take your activism somewhere else.
1191:
1090:
532:
165:
160:
3312:
I am calling on every one of us here to vote. A simple one word answer is sufficient:
1788:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
386:
who can overrule the worldwide community of aviation historians and prove your point.
381:
from 1903-1905 show the flights. Dozens of books are available (see References in the
4053:
sand. I have experimented with colorizing photos myself and enjoyed Peter Jackson's
2661:
could conceivably include it. But that isn't happening. The policy I'm leaning on is
954:
837:
809:
781:
743:
537:
476:
442:
174:
97:
2455:- Article focused on event/person using colorized historical photo in the infobox:
2164:"Let's block the process of continual improvement. The old way is the better way."
4487:
1694:
1089:
So the first statement in this article now fits perfectly well with that article.--
824:
4563:
4547:
4500:
4457:
4424:
4395:
4373:
4267:
4251:
4228:
4201:
4150:
4132:
4072:
4028:
3970:
3932:
3862:
3828:
3798:
3772:
3650:
3622:
3552:
3519:
3501:
3470:
3443:
3427:
3397:
3383:
3367:
3353:
3333:
3290:
3230:
3177:
3162:
3136:
3115:
2926:
2901:
2882:
2866:
2847:
2832:
2674:
2651:
2636:
2587:
2500:
2484:
2430:
2414:
2384:
2341:
2311:
2286:
2267:
2243:
2205:
2177:
2143:
2099:
2078:. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here.
2056:
I am the one who did the 2018 b&w restoration. I expect you're aware that an
2007:
1979:
1960:
1944:
1864:
1846:
1826:
1811:
1680:
1656:
1628:
1606:
1588:
1557:
1516:
1467:
1433:
1403:
1376:
1353:
1333:
1315:
1291:
1270:
1233:
1204:
1166:
1139:
1116:
1098:
1038:
1016:
997:
982:
930:
870:
845:
817:
789:
768:
751:
733:
712:
675:
649:
615:
599:
545:
524:
484:
463:
430:
395:
361:
339:
306:
288:
268:
249:
235:
216:
201:
182:
168:
134:
100:
90:
4538:
I will not add this to the article this year, but someone else might want to. --
4387:
4259:
3962:
3854:
3790:
3747:"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."
3642:
3511:
3341:
3274:
2853:"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."
2762:
against voting down the change. And this very act of not acting... or rather,
1187:
1158:
629:
607:
353:
260:
227:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
378:
4142:
3565:
3462:
3270:
3242:
2950:
2918:
2603:
2441:
As it turns out, we have an exact parallel to the issue being discussed here:
2437:
Colorization of historical photos - Consensus was established way back in 2014
2376:
2050:
1971:
1932:
1818:
1749:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/presskits/wrightbrothers/wbephotos.cfm
1739:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/events/pressroom/presskits/wrightbrothers/wbephotos.cfm
1508:
1395:
1345:
1283:
1225:
1131:
760:
725:
641:
628:, or I wouldn't have asked you to discuss your changes first. I'll move on. -
591:
516:
422:
387:
331:
280:
4480:
of a very important discussion. Both subsections were Fully Collapsed under
4359:* - I may have dropped the ball with one policy at the very end. Or rather,
4019:
the moment anyone comes forward with anything that gets closer to realism. --
1951:
original black and white photo is the iconic visual descriptor of the event.
405:
been concealed for the US and UK public as in the current WIKIPEDIA article.
4085:
for the monk image. Please post up there if you'd like to remove any doubt.
3785:
I see no mention of a Sanna Dullaway on the image file page. From the file:
3307:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4740894482/Monk-color-photo.jpeg
1817:"American Heritage" reference updated to working URL; archive links all ok.
558:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=529&page=260
4520:
3923:
I'm obviously not communicating clearly. But I hope it's all clear now. --
2816:
far as known reliable sources tell us, witnessed this event in monochrome.
1719:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2010/4/2010_4_68.shtml
4509:(Exception being if someone were to request my input on a matter.) --: -->
4477:
3587:
in WP:OR. Nor does colorization/colourization appear one single time in
1078:
2258:
about colorized babies. Black or white. Pick a lane and stay there. --
1899:
which existed at that time. Well that limitation has now been removed.
640:
controversial, but saw no sign of that here and simply edited "boldly".
3628:
Wright Stuf, I suggest then that you ask for a policy clarification at
3488:
gimmicks" point of view than the "restoring historical artefacts" one.
2129:
The proper way to deal with these variations and inconsistencies is to
1927:
This exact same argument stands for the parallel revert which happened
808:
than being the conjecture that it is in an article on the Wright Flyer.
1776:
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
875:
3851:
File:Wright_First_Flight_1903Dec17_(full_restore_115,_colorized).jpg
2578:
and the b&w image pops up, without even leaving the article. --
2537:
to its most prominent image, which is clearly labeled as colorized.
3568:: "We have been over this all before, colouring photos is simply
2161:. Ironically, the position you three have taken here amounts to:
1874:
693:
1902-03 has more of a claim to beating the Flyer than the 14 Bis.
2277:
too, seems to be still running and put up a new edition in 2019!
2122:
result in 100 different output. Many times, these results are
1914:
entry is one such article. This one about the Wright Flyer is
1058:"The Wright Flyer (...) was the world's first modern airplane."
3579:
been over it. But I haven't. And I've searched. The string
2730:
Now there is a 3rd Option which would be ideal: Create clear
25:
4081:
Your comment here could be taken to indicate that you'd vote
2995:
DonFB: "Consensus is achieved on each article, separately."
1729:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/military/615.html
1344:
Reliable sources don't support your challenge to the photo.
4003:
Ok, I NOW finally understand what you were saying in your
3583:(which covers colorization/colourization) does not appear
1705:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
352:, and that's the place to fight your battles, not here. -
4531:
To quote Steve Jobs, "There is one more thing." I found
1066:
And even more important, this plain English statement is
827:. I re-instituted the whole article word-for-word in the
504:
engine was a few horsepower short of desirable strength.
4468:
3202:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2510:
1928:
1891:
222:
Wow, you waited an hour and 15 minutes, and then added
4209:
GOODBYE, and thank you all for this civil discussion.
2444:- Use of a colorized historical photo in the infobox,
4350:). In case anyone wasn't convinced by Sanna's monk.
2691:
I readily agree that the Wright Flyer photo carries
2619:And the precise number throughout that period were
2061:deviate from what has been historically preserved.
777:
Why wasn't it removed from the Wright flyer article
3659:I will be perfectly happy to give this a rest for
2754:to having their edits reverted. They did this by
330:their acceleration to takeoff speed by catapult.
2700:has been established. And precedent operates on
1902:The rationale presented for the revert was this:
1244:out of the camera frame, but that seems unlikely.
759:article, it will still exist in its own article.
3591:. This is the best I've been able to find...
3298:Let's say that all of us here are interested in
3089:follow in alike circumstances. Like it or not,
2446:-- Ensuring that it is properly labeled as such,
4517:A glimpse of what our colorized future could be
4176:DFB: "Are you dissatisfied with that outcome?"
4094:I interpret your position to be that you would
3240:(Inserted- Your input is being requested here:
2529:On top of this, there is tacit agreement from
4234:A possible solution to the above enclosed box
1879:Seconds into the first airplane flight, near
8:
3457:this all before, colouring photos is simply
531:witnessed the debacle that happened to poor
3600:"It is not acceptable for an editor to use
3561:Fundamental issue: LACK of Policy guidance
2196:blue in 1903, especially above the ocean).
4325:Is colorization good for Knowledge (XXG)?
4207:Ok, forget the monk. I am out of here.
1693:I have just modified 4 external links on
1077:If you click through the new link to the
1301:doubt about this photo because it shows
937:
624:My apologies, I didn't realize this was
2475:our article here has now been fixed. --
3853:? that's not in the file information.
3786:
2370:
1967:
1686:External links modified (January 2018)
550:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3630:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Image use policy
2623:, incl ~27 minor edits. (Hard stats
688:Proposal to delete the 14 bis section
7:
3607:Knowledge (XXG):Files for discussion
3510:Thanks for taking a second look. :)
2746:. For the moment, let's ignore the
2463:Alexander Roinashvili (photographer)
2158:accuracy of the colorization process
2913:refers throughout to discussion by
2105:I should also have replied to this:
1195:made already in the article body.
906:Artifact image referencing STS-51-L
490:You are correct: this article does
4554:imagined by the image's creators.
4156:I make no commands of anyone here.
1303:3 dark spots that cannot be caused
1277:Identification of 4th flight photo
24:
2760:SILENCE CONSTITUTES AN ABSTENTION
2533:who made changes to this article
1887:; December 17, 1903. (colorized)
1697:. Please take a moment to review
4164:in its essence, then I would be
3763:how Knowledge (XXG) operates. --
3671:of you vote "monochrome" in the
3047:The proper use of IAR is this...
2821:Lack of Specific Policy Guidance
1767:
159:
29:
2472:article focused on photography.
2294:, I've added your image to the
1994:colorized version, in spite of
1246:We're not obliged to copy down
943:Jane's All the World's Aircraft
938:Jane's All the World's Aircraft
4160:If the Ilya article was not a
1205:10:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
871:07:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
4564:20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
4548:20:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
4501:18:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4458:04:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4425:04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4396:04:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4374:04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4268:01:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4252:00:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
4229:02:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
4202:01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
4151:01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
4133:01:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
4073:00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
4029:01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3971:00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3933:00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3863:00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3553:00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3520:00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3502:00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3398:07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
2604:page stats: ~51 ave views/day
2541:five figures worth of people.
2296:Hand-colouring of photographs
780:Flying Machines, be my guest.
307:22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
269:22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
250:22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
236:18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
217:15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
202:12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
4305:Knowledge (XXG):Colorization
4115:that the colorized Flyer is
4098:colorized here, or at least
3829:23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3799:23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3773:23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3651:21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3623:20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3471:19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3444:15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3428:15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3384:23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3368:23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3354:14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3334:13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3291:23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3231:10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3178:09:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3168:That's a fair summary, IMHO.
3163:07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
3151:Knowledge (XXG):Wall of text
3137:00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
3116:00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
2927:23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2902:22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2883:22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2867:21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2848:21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2833:21:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2675:16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2652:16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2637:14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2588:13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2501:12:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2485:12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2431:12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2415:10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2385:07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2342:04:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2312:01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
2287:20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2268:20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2244:20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2225:from well over a decade ago.
2206:17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2178:16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2144:16:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2100:15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2008:14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1980:12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1961:11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1945:11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1833:"Crude" 12 horsepower engine
1827:11:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1812:11:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1297:No, you cannot. Historicans
1049:Simplified initial statement
931:22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
676:18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
650:18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
616:17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
600:17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
579:05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
551:You're in the Air Force, now
464:03:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
169:20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
91:21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4463:My final post here for 2021
2744:it does establish consensus
2013:Reply to all three of you:
1167:20:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1140:19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1117:02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1099:01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1081:article, you'll find this:
900:16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
4580:
2405:, please focus. Thanks. --
2134:see that this was done. --
2038:of the sky. Here we have
2020:. I'm glad you like it.
1690:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
963:05:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
224:A lot of people think this
74:The controversy about the
4445:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism
3849:Sanna Dullaway colorized
3719:the onus is on all of you
3665:I will commit to this if
2608:period spanning 2337 days
2535:without voicing objection
1681:17:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
1657:09:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
1629:16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
1607:14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
1589:19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
1558:09:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
1517:18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1468:17:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1434:16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1404:15:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1394:word in Knowledge (XXG).
1377:13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1354:12:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1334:12:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1316:11:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1292:09:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
1271:01:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
1234:21:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
1039:18:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
1017:17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
998:05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
983:04:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
846:02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
790:02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
546:14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
525:03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
485:15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
431:03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
396:02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
362:04:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
340:01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
289:04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
183:15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
164:What about this picture?
101:12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
4442:...and most recently on
3632:. The consensus here is
3236:Graphic Violence Warning
2935:Replying to all three...
2152:continuous improvement.
1865:16:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
1847:14:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
818:00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
769:08:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
752:01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
734:19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
713:06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
135:02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
4476:, preventing a literal
4345:They Shall Not Grow Old
4295:As for embarrassment...
4190:a robbery just occurred
4056:They Shall Not Grow Old
3277:and clarification from
2300:Photograph manipulation
1853:The source clearly says
4528:
3611:
2758:against the reverts.
2218:philosophical question
1888:
796:Wright Flyer vs. 14bis
4526:
3661:the remainder of 2021
3596:WP:OR#Original images
3593:
2191:still exists? I know
2076:historically accurate
1897:technology limitation
1878:
949:, instead giving the
833:First Flying Machines
829:First Flying Machines
806:first flying machines
802:first flying machines
740:first flying machines
317:Alberto Santos-Dumont
42:of past discussions.
4017:immediately replaced
3715:exact same rationale
3639:conflict of interest
3324:I will vote last. --
2788:a Neutrality issue.
2706:Being 'right' scales
1931:by the same editor,
722:First flying machine
449:20:29, 21 July 2008
372:00:45, 17 July 2008
350:First flying machine
323:01:39, 14 July 2008
84:first flying machine
76:first flying machine
70:First flying machine
4310:exceptionally proud
3589:WP:Image use policy
3454:User:RandomCanadian
3096:that parallel case.
2693:orders of magnitude
2600:100,000+ Page Views
2566:best of both worlds
2521:) and Jaqeli (edit
2513:), Centpacrr (edit
2131:adequately document
409:01:27, 21 July 2008
379:Library of Congress
4529:
4121:PUT US ON THE PATH
3602:photo manipulation
3572:and doesn't go."
3461:and doesn't go. -
2517:), Damianmx (edit
2332:Wow, THANK YOU! --
1889:
1800:InternetArchiveBot
4482:strenuous protest
3887:Scroll up to the
2970:potential editors
2889:WP:IGNOREALLRULES
2531:all other editors
2457:Ilia Chavchavadze
968:Opening paragraph
934:
917:comment added by
890:comment added by
703:comment added by
581:
565:comment added by
439:Gustave Whitehead
188:An absolute fact?
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Wright Flyer
4571:
4524:
4162:perfect parallel
4117:FAR FROM PERFECT
4070:
4068:Let's discuss it
3358:So, monochrome.
3211:wp:WIKILAWYERING
2748:10s of thousands
2621:~140 Total Edits
1810:
1801:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1716:
951:Whitehead No. 21
933:
911:
902:
715:
560:
163:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4579:
4578:
4574:
4573:
4572:
4570:
4569:
4568:
4522:
4519:
4465:
4236:
4113:I readily agree
4111:All that said,
4066:
3889:Graphic Warning
3817:monk subsection
3759:This is simply
3673:monk subsection
3585:one single time
3563:
3485:colourblindness
3408:
3300:Thích Quảng Đức
3238:
3186:
3147:
2855:
2781:WP:UNDUE WEIGHT
2470:John T. Daniels
2439:
2088:John T. Daniels
2086:looked like to
1912:John T. Daniels
1873:
1871:Colorized photo
1839:141.156.187.235
1835:
1804:
1799:
1772:
1768:
1710:
1703:this simple FaQ
1688:
1279:
1221:
1054:now says this:
1051:
970:
940:
912:
908:
885:
878:
854:
798:
698:
690:
587:
553:
383:Wright brothers
190:
157:
146:
109:
107:Anonymous edits
80:Wright brothers
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4577:
4575:
4567:
4566:
4518:
4515:
4513:
4511:
4510:
4464:
4461:
4434:
4433:
4432:
4431:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4427:
4413:
4403:
4402:
4401:
4400:
4399:
4398:
4379:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4327:
4317:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4296:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4287:
4281:
4280:
4279:
4278:
4271:
4270:
4235:
4232:
4217:I Like Turtles
4211:
4205:
4204:
4180:
4179:
4178:
4177:
4171:
4170:
4158:
4157:
4138:
4137:
4136:
4135:
4106:
4105:
4104:
4103:
4089:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4076:
4075:
4046:
4045:
4044:
4043:
4042:
4041:
4040:
4039:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4013:
4012:
4011:
3986:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3975:
3974:
3973:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3940:
3939:
3938:
3937:
3936:
3935:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3906:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3901:
3900:
3899:
3898:
3897:
3874:
3873:
3872:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3838:
3837:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3831:
3806:
3805:
3804:
3803:
3802:
3801:
3778:
3777:
3776:
3775:
3754:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3750:
3749:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3736:
3730:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3705:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3654:
3653:
3599:
3562:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3538:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3532:RandomCanadian
3530:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3505:
3504:
3490:RandomCanadian
3476:
3475:
3474:
3473:
3447:
3446:
3416:RandomCanadian
3407:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3400:
3371:
3370:
3356:
3318:
3313:
3310:
3309:
3297:
3267:RandomCanadian
3241:
3237:
3234:
3213:and piling up
3185:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3146:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3086:
3085:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3049:
3048:
3042:
3041:
3040:
3039:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3029:
3025:
3024:
3015:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3008:
3007:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2966:
2965:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2937:
2936:
2930:
2929:
2905:
2904:
2885:
2854:
2851:
2813:
2812:
2797:
2796:
2756:not persisting
2740:
2739:
2728:
2727:
2724:
2715:
2680:Reply to both
2678:
2677:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2538:
2527:
2526:
2504:
2503:
2473:
2460:
2449:
2447:
2445:
2438:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2223:settled policy
2209:
2208:
2150:
2148:
2115:
2114:
2106:
2104:
2065:
2011:
2010:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1925:
1924:
1908:
1907:
1885:North Carolina
1872:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1794:
1793:
1786:
1762:
1761:
1753:Added archive
1751:
1743:Added archive
1741:
1733:Added archive
1731:
1723:Added archive
1721:
1687:
1684:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1592:
1591:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1319:
1318:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1263:96.237.114.137
1261:
1259:
1245:
1220:
1219:4th flight pic
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1087:
1086:
1060:
1059:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1001:
1000:
969:
966:
939:
936:
907:
904:
892:24.202.129.146
877:
874:
853:
850:
849:
848:
797:
794:
793:
792:
772:
771:
756:
755:
754:
689:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
619:
618:
586:
583:
552:
549:
533:Samuel Langley
528:
527:
512:
505:
501:
472:
471:
467:
466:
434:
433:
413:
412:
411:
410:
399:
398:
365:
364:
345:
344:
343:
342:
312:
311:
310:
309:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
272:
271:
255:
254:
253:
252:
239:
238:
189:
186:
156:
153:
151:
145:
144:Wrong Location
142:
139:
120:
119:
108:
105:
104:
103:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4576:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4552:
4551:
4550:
4549:
4545:
4541:
4536:
4534:
4525:
4516:
4514:
4508:
4507:
4506:
4503:
4502:
4498:
4494:
4490:
4489:
4483:
4479:
4475:
4474:Accessibility
4471:
4470:
4462:
4460:
4459:
4455:
4451:
4447:
4446:
4441:
4440:
4426:
4422:
4418:
4414:
4411:
4410:
4409:
4408:
4407:
4406:
4405:
4404:
4397:
4393:
4389:
4385:
4384:
4383:
4382:
4381:
4380:
4375:
4371:
4367:
4362:
4358:
4357:
4356:
4355:
4349:
4346:
4341:
4336:
4335:
4334:
4333:
4326:
4323:
4322:
4321:
4320:
4319:
4318:
4311:
4307:
4306:
4301:
4294:
4293:
4292:
4291:
4285:
4284:
4283:
4282:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4269:
4265:
4261:
4256:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4249:
4245:
4241:
4233:
4231:
4230:
4226:
4222:
4218:
4213:
4210:
4203:
4199:
4195:
4191:
4186:
4182:
4181:
4175:
4174:
4173:
4172:
4167:
4163:
4159:
4155:
4154:
4153:
4152:
4148:
4144:
4134:
4130:
4126:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4110:
4109:
4108:
4107:
4101:
4097:
4093:
4092:
4091:
4090:
4084:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4074:
4071:
4069:
4064:
4063:
4058:
4057:
4051:
4048:
4047:
4030:
4026:
4022:
4018:
4014:
4009:
4008:
4006:
4002:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3998:
3997:
3996:
3995:
3994:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3990:
3989:
3988:
3987:
3972:
3968:
3964:
3960:
3959:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3950:
3949:
3948:
3947:
3934:
3930:
3926:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3896:
3893:
3892:
3890:
3886:
3885:
3884:
3883:
3882:
3881:
3880:
3879:
3878:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3864:
3860:
3856:
3852:
3848:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3810:
3809:
3808:
3807:
3800:
3796:
3792:
3788:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3779:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3755:
3748:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3742:
3741:
3740:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3703:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3680:
3676:
3674:
3670:
3669:
3662:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3652:
3648:
3644:
3640:
3635:
3631:
3627:
3626:
3625:
3624:
3620:
3616:
3610:
3608:
3603:
3597:
3592:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3578:
3573:
3571:
3567:
3560:
3554:
3550:
3546:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3539:
3533:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3506:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3491:
3486:
3482:
3478:
3477:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3455:
3452:I agree with
3451:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3445:
3441:
3437:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3405:
3399:
3395:
3391:
3390:GraemeLeggett
3387:
3386:
3385:
3381:
3377:
3373:
3372:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3355:
3351:
3347:
3343:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3322:
3321:
3316:
3308:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3301:
3294:
3292:
3288:
3284:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3268:
3264:
3260:
3259:GraemeLeggett
3256:
3252:
3248:
3244:
3235:
3233:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3220:
3219:WP:DISRUPTIVE
3216:
3212:
3208:
3204:
3200:
3197:
3194:
3190:
3183:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3170:GraemeLeggett
3167:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3144:
3138:
3134:
3130:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3122:
3117:
3113:
3109:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3095:
3092:
3087:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3074:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3050:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3026:
3022:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3009:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2984:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2971:
2967:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2952:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2938:
2934:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2928:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2907:
2906:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2890:
2886:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2864:
2860:
2852:
2850:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2835:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2817:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2805:
2803:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2789:
2787:
2782:
2776:
2775:weighing in.
2774:
2768:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2733:
2725:
2722:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2712:
2709:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2694:
2689:
2687:
2683:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2659:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2576:photog's name
2573:
2572:
2571:*scroll over*
2567:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2554:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2539:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2471:
2466:
2464:
2458:
2453:
2450:
2442:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2373:
2368:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2256:nothing funny
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2224:
2220:
2219:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2194:
2190:
2185:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2165:
2162:
2160:
2159:
2153:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2127:
2125:
2119:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2083:
2079:
2077:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2059:
2058:entire corner
2054:
2052:
2048:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1917:
1913:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1893:
1886:
1882:
1877:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1808:
1803:
1802:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1720:
1714:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1685:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1577:
1576:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1243:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1218:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1048:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:FillsHerTease
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
975:FillsHerTease
967:
965:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
935:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
905:
903:
901:
897:
893:
889:
882:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
851:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
826:
822:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
795:
791:
787:
783:
778:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
694:
687:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
651:
647:
643:
638:
637:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
604:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
584:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
559:
548:
547:
543:
539:
534:
526:
522:
518:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
469:
468:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:
448:
444:
443:Santos-Dumont
440:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
414:
408:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
384:
380:
375:
374:
373:
371:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
346:
341:
337:
333:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
322:
318:
308:
305:
304:Baseball Bugs
300:
299:
298:
297:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
251:
248:
247:Baseball Bugs
243:
242:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
204:
203:
199:
195:
187:
185:
184:
180:
176:
171:
170:
167:
162:
154:
152:
149:
143:
141:
137:
136:
133:
129:
128:
123:
118:
114:
113:
112:
106:
102:
99:
95:
94:
93:
92:
89:
85:
81:
77:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4537:
4530:
4512:
4504:
4488:Common Sense
4486:
4481:
4467:
4466:
4443:
4439:WP:Consensus
4437:
4435:
4360:
4339:
4324:
4309:
4303:
4299:
4237:
4214:
4208:
4206:
4189:
4184:
4165:
4161:
4139:
4120:
4116:
4112:
4099:
4095:
4082:
4067:
4061:
4054:
4049:
4016:
4005:21:27, 9 Feb
4004:
3760:
3746:
3722:
3718:
3714:
3701:
3667:
3666:
3664:
3660:
3633:
3612:
3594:
3584:
3580:
3576:
3574:
3564:
3409:
3323:
3319:
3315:- monochrome
3314:
3311:
3295:
3255:Marc Lacoste
3239:
3221:. — Cheers,
3207:WP:LISTENing
3195:
3187:
3155:Marc Lacoste
3148:
3093:
3072:
2982:
2969:
2914:
2856:
2836:
2820:
2818:
2814:
2806:
2801:
2798:
2790:
2785:
2777:
2772:
2769:
2763:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2741:
2731:
2729:
2720:
2713:
2710:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2692:
2690:
2679:
2620:
2599:
2570:
2565:
2534:
2530:
2467:
2454:
2451:
2443:
2440:
2399:
2369:: You said:
2274:
2255:
2222:
2217:
2216:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2166:
2163:
2157:
2156:
2154:
2147:
2130:
2128:
2123:
2120:
2116:
2103:
2084:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2068:
2063:
2057:
2055:
2049:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2015:
2012:
1990:
1926:
1915:
1909:
1901:
1896:
1890:
1836:
1798:
1795:
1775:
1766:
1763:
1695:Wright Flyer
1692:
1689:
1669:
1302:
1298:
1280:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1241:
1222:
1088:
1076:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1052:
971:
941:
913:— Preceding
909:
883:
879:
855:
832:
828:
825:Wright Flyer
805:
801:
799:
776:
739:
705:125.240.61.2
695:
691:
626:your article
588:
554:
529:
508:
496:
491:
473:
447:Pjotr Morgen
435:
417:
407:Pjotr Morgen
370:Pjotr Morgen
366:
321:Pjotr Morgen
313:
223:
205:
191:
172:
158:
150:
147:
138:
130:
125:
124:
121:
115:
110:
73:
60:
43:
37:
4540:Wright Stuf
4493:Wright Stuf
4450:Wright Stuf
4417:Wright Stuf
4366:Wright Stuf
4240:Wright Stuf
4221:Wright Stuf
4194:Wright Stuf
4125:Wright Stuf
4021:Wright Stuf
3925:Wright Stuf
3821:Wright Stuf
3765:Wright Stuf
3615:Wright Stuf
3545:Wright Stuf
3481:WP:BLUDGEON
3376:Binksternet
3342:Ansel Adams
3326:Wright Stuf
3283:Wright Stuf
3263:Steelpillow
3251:Binksternet
3223:Steelpillow
3189:Wright Stuf
3184:PoV-pushing
3129:Wright Stuf
3108:Wright Stuf
2875:Binksternet
2859:Wright Stuf
2840:Wright Stuf
2825:Wright Stuf
2686:Binksternet
2667:Binksternet
2629:Wright Stuf
2580:Wright Stuf
2477:Wright Stuf
2423:Wright Stuf
2403:Wright Stuf
2367:Wright Stuf
2334:Wright Stuf
2292:Wright Stuf
2260:Wright Stuf
2236:Wright Stuf
2170:Wright Stuf
2136:Wright Stuf
2126:different.
2092:Wright Stuf
1996:Wright Stuf
1937:Wright Stuf
1857:Binksternet
1673:MilborneOne
1621:Binksternet
1581:MilborneOne
1460:Binksternet
1326:Binksternet
1109:Binksternet
1031:Binksternet
990:Binksternet
886:—Preceding
863:Binksternet
699:—Preceding
668:MilborneOne
561:—Preceding
209:Roger491127
194:Roger491127
132:Willy Logan
88:Willy Logan
36:This is an
4556:Randy Kryn
4244:Randy Kryn
4100:not oppose
3436:Randy Kryn
3360:Randy Kryn
3346:Randy Kryn
3279:Randy Kryn
3247:Ariadacapo
3052:exception.
2894:Randy Kryn
2742:Actually,
2644:Randy Kryn
2553:Ariadacapo
2493:Randy Kryn
2407:Ariadacapo
2304:Randy Kryn
2279:Randy Kryn
2275:World Book
2198:Randy Kryn
2193:Britannica
2189:World Book
2111:Ariadacapo
2022:Ariadacapo
2000:Ariadacapo
1953:Randy Kryn
1881:Kitty Hawk
1807:Report bug
1256:additional
1248:everything
1197:Ariadacapo
919:X3phillips
724:article.
567:Trekphiler
4469:This EDIT
4166:the first
3723:perfectly
2911:consensus
2764:giving up
2721:rejecting
2702:PRINCIPLE
2698:PRECEDENT
2663:WP:WEIGHT
2124:radically
2036:lightness
1892:THIS edit
1790:this tool
1783:this tool
1713:dead link
1252:unnotable
1242:backwards
1192:Lexi sioz
1091:Lexi sioz
852:Stability
166:Randroide
61:Archive 1
4478:cover up
4277:iceberg.
4185:THRILLED
3575:Perhaps
3498:contribs
3424:contribs
3412:WP:TROUT
3215:WP:WALLS
3199:contribs
2752:assented
2551:text. (
2016:Thanks,
1796:Cheers.—
1079:airplane
1068:accurate
955:BabyNuke
927:contribs
915:unsigned
888:unsigned
838:Koplimek
810:Koplimek
782:Koplimek
744:Koplimek
701:unsigned
575:contribs
563:unsigned
538:Koplimek
477:Koplimek
456:JohndanR
175:Koplimek
117:success.
98:Blimpguy
4348:trailer
4300:missing
3726:intact.
3634:clearly
3388:Ditto.
3320:- color
3209:but by
3203:in 2018
2915:editors
2802:DEMANDS
2071:factual
1717:tag to
1699:my edit
859:WP:LEAD
418:require
155:Picture
39:archive
4388:BilCat
4260:BilCat
4238:Since
4062:Cullen
4050:Oppose
3963:BilCat
3855:BilCat
3791:BilCat
3668:only 3
3643:BilCat
3577:you've
3512:BilCat
3275:BilCat
3145:TL, DR
2684:&
1709:Added
1649:Schily
1599:Schily
1550:Schily
1501:people
1497:things
1426:Schily
1369:Schily
1308:Schily
1188:BilCat
1159:BilCat
697:below.
630:BilCat
608:BilCat
509:14-bis
497:before
354:BillCJ
261:BillCJ
228:BillCJ
4361:after
4340:AGREE
4219:." --
4183:I am
4143:DonFB
4096:Favor
4083:color
3702:THREE
3679:Randy
3675:above
3570:WP:OR
3566:Ahunt
3463:Ahunt
3459:WP:OR
3271:Ahunt
3243:DonFB
3149:Wow,
3021:Randy
2951:DonFB
2919:DonFB
2682:Randy
2627:). --
2377:DonFB
2051:DonFB
2040:proof
2018:Randy
1972:DonFB
1933:DonFB
1819:DonFB
1509:DonFB
1505:WP:RS
1396:DonFB
1346:DonFB
1284:DonFB
1226:DonFB
1132:DonFB
836:(UTC)
761:DonFB
726:DonFB
642:DonFB
592:DonFB
517:DonFB
423:DonFB
388:DonFB
332:DonFB
281:DonFB
16:<
4560:talk
4544:talk
4533:this
4497:talk
4491:. --
4454:talk
4421:talk
4392:talk
4370:talk
4264:talk
4248:talk
4225:talk
4198:talk
4192:. --
4169:gap.
4147:talk
4129:talk
4025:talk
3967:talk
3929:talk
3859:talk
3825:talk
3795:talk
3769:talk
3647:talk
3619:talk
3581:colo
3549:talk
3516:talk
3494:talk
3467:talk
3440:talk
3420:talk
3406:TLDR
3394:talk
3380:talk
3364:talk
3350:talk
3330:talk
3317:, or
3287:talk
3281:. --
3227:Talk
3193:talk
3174:talk
3159:talk
3133:talk
3112:talk
3091:Ilia
2923:talk
2898:talk
2879:talk
2863:talk
2844:talk
2829:talk
2671:talk
2648:talk
2633:talk
2625:here
2584:talk
2574:the
2523:here
2519:here
2515:here
2511:here
2497:talk
2481:talk
2427:talk
2411:talk
2381:talk
2338:talk
2308:talk
2298:and
2283:talk
2264:talk
2240:talk
2202:talk
2174:talk
2140:talk
2096:talk
2004:talk
1976:talk
1957:talk
1941:talk
1929:HERE
1861:talk
1843:talk
1823:talk
1677:talk
1653:talk
1625:talk
1603:talk
1585:talk
1554:talk
1513:talk
1499:and
1464:talk
1430:talk
1400:talk
1373:talk
1350:talk
1330:talk
1312:talk
1299:have
1288:talk
1267:talk
1230:talk
1201:talk
1163:talk
1136:talk
1113:talk
1095:talk
1072:here
1035:talk
1013:talk
994:talk
979:talk
959:talk
947:link
923:talk
896:talk
867:talk
842:talk
814:talk
786:talk
765:talk
748:talk
730:talk
709:talk
672:talk
646:talk
634:talk
612:talk
596:talk
571:talk
542:talk
521:talk
481:talk
460:talk
427:talk
392:talk
358:talk
336:talk
285:talk
265:talk
232:talk
213:talk
198:talk
179:talk
3761:not
3677:.
3663:.
3500:)
3426:)
3073:not
2786:not
2773:not
2606:) (
2602:. (
2044:not
2032:not
1916:not
1757:to
1747:to
1737:to
1727:to
1074:).
585:FAI
492:not
441:or
4562:)
4546:)
4499:)
4456:)
4423:)
4394:)
4372:)
4364:--
4266:)
4250:)
4227:)
4200:)
4149:)
4131:)
4027:)
3969:)
3931:)
3861:)
3827:)
3797:)
3771:)
3649:)
3621:)
3609:."
3551:)
3518:)
3496:/
3469:)
3442:)
3422:/
3396:)
3382:)
3366:)
3352:)
3332:)
3293:)
3289:)
3273:,
3269:,
3265:,
3261:,
3257:,
3253:,
3249:,
3245:,
3229:)
3176:)
3161:)
3135:)
3114:)
3106:--
3094:IS
2925:)
2900:)
2881:)
2865:)
2846:)
2831:)
2732:WP
2708:.
2688::
2673:)
2650:)
2635:)
2586:)
2525:).
2499:)
2483:)
2465:.
2429:)
2421:--
2413:)
2383:)
2340:)
2310:)
2285:)
2266:)
2242:)
2204:)
2176:)
2168:--
2142:)
2098:)
2006:)
1991:is
1978:)
1959:)
1943:)
1883:,
1863:)
1845:)
1825:)
1715:}}
1711:{{
1679:)
1655:)
1627:)
1605:)
1587:)
1556:)
1515:)
1507:.
1466:)
1432:)
1402:)
1375:)
1352:)
1332:)
1314:)
1290:)
1269:)
1232:)
1203:)
1165:)
1138:)
1115:)
1097:)
1037:)
1015:)
996:)
981:)
961:)
929:)
925:•
898:)
869:)
844:)
816:)
788:)
767:)
750:)
732:)
711:)
674:)
648:)
636:)
614:)
598:)
577:)
573:•
544:)
523:)
483:)
462:)
445:.
429:)
394:)
360:)
338:)
319:.
287:)
267:)
234:)
215:)
200:)
181:)
86:.
4558:(
4542:(
4495:(
4452:(
4419:(
4390:(
4368:(
4262:(
4246:(
4223:(
4215:"
4196:(
4145:(
4127:(
4023:(
3965:(
3927:(
3857:(
3823:(
3793:(
3767:(
3645:(
3617:(
3598::
3547:(
3514:(
3492:(
3465:(
3438:(
3418:(
3392:(
3378:(
3362:(
3348:(
3328:(
3285:(
3225:(
3196:·
3191:(
3172:(
3157:(
3131:(
3110:(
2921:(
2896:(
2877:(
2861:(
2842:(
2827:(
2669:(
2646:(
2631:(
2610:)
2582:(
2495:(
2479:(
2459:.
2425:(
2409:(
2379:(
2336:(
2306:(
2281:(
2262:(
2238:(
2200:(
2172:(
2138:(
2094:(
2002:(
1974:(
1955:(
1939:(
1859:(
1841:(
1821:(
1809:)
1805:(
1792:.
1785:.
1773:Y
1675:(
1651:(
1623:(
1601:(
1583:(
1552:(
1511:(
1462:(
1428:(
1398:(
1371:(
1348:(
1328:(
1310:(
1286:(
1265:(
1228:(
1199:(
1161:(
1134:(
1111:(
1093:(
1033:(
1011:(
992:(
977:(
957:(
921:(
894:(
865:(
840:(
812:(
784:(
763:(
746:(
728:(
707:(
670:(
644:(
632:(
610:(
594:(
569:(
540:(
519:(
479:(
458:(
425:(
390:(
356:(
334:(
283:(
263:(
230:(
211:(
196:(
177:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.