Misplaced Pages

User:Lsorin

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lsorin (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 13 February 2011 (→ArbCom). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:25, 13 February 2011 by Lsorin (talk | contribs) (→ArbCom)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hello to everybody reaching this page.

I had to write down this things, below because I know that my account will be blocked immediately, when I will start editing again the article Coandă-1910. Why? Because is wrongly written and contains the biased view of a xenophobic group of "star" editors of Misplaced Pages, supported by one single so called aviation historian, which made some very unprofessional assessments on Coandă-1910.

Basically the problem is about the introduction of the article. Henri Coandă's airplane from 1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world. This statement is supported by the majority of the sources present today in specialized media. In the past, the fact above was contested by Gibbs-Smith and more recently his former NAMS office colleague, the freelancer writer Frank H. Winter with some unprofessional, glittered with lies and important missing information, articles and assessments on the Coandă-1910. Many of this problems were already presented in the talk page of Coandă-1910 and I will try to get them all together on this page ( before my account gets blocked again ).

About the sources

The problems with the current form of this article are not of technical nature. And regarding that I don't think there was not a single technical expert on Coanda-1910 of jet engines in general involved in any of the Coanda-1910 related discussion. This is why the sources must be correctly used as per WP:IRS. The problem I present here is regarding the usage of two doubtful sources to impose a particular point of view which in this particular case, brings a very serious consequence of denigrating the memory of a reputed scientist calling him bluntly a liar. The doubtfulness of those two sources was already demonstrated in the discussions: first the very controversial(,,,,,,,) aviation historian Gibbs-Smith with his full of technical mistakes and missing relevant sources, assessment on Coanda-1910 based mostly on evidence of absence.

  • Gibbs-Smith writes regarding Coanda-1910 and the sequent airplane build in 1911 that it had not retractable landing gear, tank in the wings or any form of wing-slots. This is showed that Gibbs-Smith missed a lot of material against his very strong statements making the whole assessment doubtful. This assessments were never review or used in any academic material after the publication. The exception was Winter article from 1980, which did not give any final position on the Coanda-1910, and used Gibbs-Smith as such.

Why Misplaced Pages does not work

Until the "problems" with all Coanda 1910 related articles personally I though that Misplaced Pages works and I was a simple enthusiast of this project, like the majority of you (I suppose). Now I realized why people like Larry Sanger co-founder of Misplaced Pages left the project: despite its merits, Misplaced Pages lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise. This is exactly what is demonstrated by the current content of this article: a lack of respect for expertise and history demonstrated by the "owners" of this article: User:Andy Dingley and User:Binksternet. Initially I did not even know about existence of the very extensive set of rules ( some of them very dubious ) present in Misplaced Pages for the help of the "Gods" of this project, the admins. The very interesting fact about this rules is that they are used by admins whenever they what to support their actions, but as well they are very happy, together with some editors, to ignore them if they are not supporting their bias! As example of such attitudes please check the history of actions related Coanda-1910.

Rules ignored by admins and editors

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

o If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
o If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
o If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The mainstream is supported by the most authoritative and reputable sources existing for such historical subjects: several academies, museums, encyclopedias and foremost historians. Still this is completely ignored in the current introduction of the article.

o surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
o reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
o claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

I refer here to Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter assessments which are dubious as high-quality sources as it was already demonstrated ( e.g. Gibbs-Smith said twice that the second version of Coanda's plane was not having the tank in the wing against a lot of sources supporting Coanda's claims, Frank H. Winter missing a lot of relevant sources and and using non-technical terms like "true jet" in all his references to Coanda-1910 ) As well on regarding the same sources in the WP:IRS can somebody demonstrate that Winter's and Gibbs stuff comply with this rule? Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. All the academic, textbooks and scholarly works of other aviation historians with access to much more data than Gibbs-Smith and Winter is just ignored or minimized in importance by the editors.

The correct introduction form supported by the mainstream: first jet-propelled aircraft was voted out in a pool which is used permanently to support the bias of the owners of the article.

Rules followed and imposed

Edit Warning: This "rule" was used by the admins to block my account for the last two times. I did extensively asked which is the exact description used for the blocking, as was never told clearly the reason, so that I can avoid it. As well as asked how can I get out of the Edit Warning, and the answer was discussion, as it is presented in the 'nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. But what is happening if the discussion is avoided by the other editors in several rounds ( check my talk to see how many times I did ask simple questions like what is the mainstream? ) In my last blocking, I did not even had the time to react for a normal discussion. I was just blocked for two weeks and explained that I was in edit warning.

A bit of history of the article editing

Until August 2010 the article was more or less stable. After the xenophobic attack of the User:Romaniantruths with the clear scope of defamation of Henri Coanda, User:Binksternet and his wikipedia buddy User:Andy Dingley, became the sole owners of Coanda-1910, controlling fully any attempt to remove their bias. Together they have attacked and accused several editors personally for any kind of improvements on the article. Andy especially did not contribute with any new information on the article after the attack, his only role being to control the present bias. Basically now they are the winners of the edit war and do not participate in any kind of discussions.

ArbCom

Now it is taken to ArbCom. Now we will see if Misplaced Pages works! As that page cannot be used for discussion "This is not a page for discussion." I will reply here:

For Andy Dingley

  • four or five "first jet aircraft" Aaaaa, quite a number! You are really the undiscovered aviation archeologist! So which are those four of five "first jet airplane" before December 1910 to claim that priority?
  • an absolutist "this was the first" statement is quite out of place for this aircraft Really? Are you doing some kind of WP:SYNTH, again? And another fact the introductions I proposed, never removed the speculations of Winter and Gibbs-Smith! If was the "first jet-propelled aircraft" according to the mainstream and speculated by one aviation historian as not being first not even last and by one freelancer not being even tested.
  • unsubstantiable claims by Coanda in the 1950s Why the historians of 1950's never had problem with Coanda's claims and completely ignored Gibbs-Smith lies? The problem is that none of us in this Misplaced Pages lived at those times nor either of us is a historian to dig the right archives and to ask the right people about the reality of the claims (like Voisin for instance). This is why Jimbo's statements about history shall be followed as such. Sorry, but this is the reality.

For Binksternet

  • was unable to achieve consensus Consensus is achieved by discussion, not by ignoring it or by voting. Sorry, but this is what Misplaced Pages explains to me! From the number of start you have you must know this as well...

For "uninvolved" Fut.Perf.

Do you call this involvement or not?

For Nimbus227

  • name Coanda means very little to me As per WP:SYNTH nobody shall care if you in 40 years never hear of Coanda. Some guys like for instance NASA heard of him. What about this guys? Of course you did not, because he was French/Romanian! ( can you fell the nationalistic touch of my statement? ) This is exactly the problem of Misplaced Pages: the WP:BIAS. As being one of the few Romanian nationals writing on an English (UK + US) Misplaced Pages, I'm very easily "killed" with voting against its own rules and WP:EW, by the English bunch.
  • I have grave doubts about its ability to even move under its own power as it was designed. I'm really surprised by your statement! What is the MTOW of your Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4? What is the engine power of the Nimbus 4DM? Does it even move under its own power?
  • It appears to be a one-sided content dispute supported by academics and your own Royal Air Force museum .
  • I asked for an RfC to be closed before considering a Good Article review, it was. What closed by whom? Was I involved in that closure? Or because I was voted against it was closed?

For Cube lurker (and Jclemens)

  • It was suggested to me by User:Amatulic to take the issue to ArbCom. And personally I feel, this is the last place were personally I can still expect neutral, unbiased approach regarding the attitudes of Andy and Binksternet regarding the edits and the uncountable tries to discuss the issues at hand. If my case is refused, than Larry Sanger's despite its merits, Misplaced Pages lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise, statement is once again enforced by this particular case.

For 71.141.88.54

  • unfortunately he seems afflicted with rather bad, apparently nationalism-inspired deafness about consensus. I tried several times to build up consensus? Why it didn't work? Because the you did not participate! Show me your messages that was deaf to ? And another beautiful thing, you are accusing me of nationalism. What were the edits of User:Romaniantruths related too? Was that a nationalistic-inspired move or xenophobic one? Is Binksternet "Gibbs forever" kind of statements: apparently nationalism-inspired deafness?
  • but there are lots of otherwise-comprehensive sources making no mention of it at all Have your read the description of WP:SYNTH? Just to give you an example: If Jane's Encyclopedia does not say that The Earth is round that mean that the Earth is flat? Are you a scholar of Coanda to make that kind of synthesis?
  • The relative scarcity of authoritative sources to contradict the dubious sources is not too uncommon a situation with fringe claims Exactly that is why Gibbs and Winter's statements are fringe in nature! Not a single academic, museum or Coanda scholar considers, those two "dubious sources"!
  • I'd like to imagine that mediation or a chat with an experienced uninvolved editor Maybe you did not notice. It was tried:

For TransientVoyager

First of all about your statement statement while there is doubt it is not reasonable to claim that the Coandă-1910 was definitely the first jet-propelled aircraft. Did you ever seen me removing any reference to Winter or Gibbs-Smith? I never said there there is no doubt! What I said, is that they are just speculating that Coanda-1910 was never tested with evidence of absence and as per WP:NPOV their statements can not represent the introduction to the article ( as it is now)! As well what you wrote there is pure synthesis:

  • have no real indisputable evidence to support the claim that a jet-propelled flight actually took place do you have access to the national archives of France or the archives of the Romanian Aviation Museum? Coanda said that he flew. Are you calling him a liar as well?
  • Victor Houart (for his son) who can hardly be regarded as an independent witness How do you know that Houart was his friend? Are you a scholar of Houart? Gabriel Voisin was the witness to the crash, as stated in 1950. That guy lived until 1973 one year after Coanda's death. Why Gibbs-Smith or Winter never said a word about him? Any other true historian at the time would have asked Voisin in person in Coanda was a liar or nor. And the book written by Houart was endorsed by Voisin, BTW. But as you can see we get both lost in pure synthesis again. I have references to that, but how can I add(check the 1910s section) them to the article, when Andy sends me strait to WP:EW?
  • reports of bad weather preventing any flights taking place for a period encompassing the supposed test flight dates Those report were made by guys living a few thousands miles away from Paris. Check 'Le Temps' for 17th of December, and you find that it is true that is was raining in Paris in the previous morning of 16th, but the afternoon was sunny and unexpectedly warm for that period of the year with temperatures soaring to 12 degrees centigrade. Why Winter is missing that? And BTW I did add a link, with statements of a professional meteorology archeologist at some point removed by Binksternet ( surprise, surprise).
  • closely-watched airfield where other, later aircraft tests and piloting activities were listed but with no mention of Coandă or his machine Antoniu did had access to the archives. Surprise! He did not find Coanda listed in December archives. But the main problem, was that that the exhibition was closed in November not Decemeber, and Coanda declared clearly that he moved the plane to Issy, immediately after the exhibition was closed! But the other big surprise, I asked Antoniu if the deadly accident from Issy on 19th of December, which was shortly remembered in January's number of "Flying" was listed in Issy archives. Another surprise, no! What about L'Aerophile? No as well. So what was "closely-watched" and how much can one trust that source?
  • no reports of any kind regarding the crash and ensuing fire If the cart( I know that you like the term ;) ) did not burn down, where it did disappear? In thin-air? We are talking here about 1 million Francs expensive piece of machinery. If it did not burn, why Coanda did not reused most of the existing parts for the next plane Coanda-1911 which BTW was very similar but have a round fuselage and completely new wings? The reality, might be that Coanda did not wanted to make to much publicity at the time to his failed stunt! Again synthesis. Why we don't stick to the sources. In this case Coanda himself.
  • For the conclusion. Let's go back to Jimbo's example: is the Earth flat or not? The mainstream says that is round. And to satisfy the WP:NPOV's Due and Undue weigh, speculations like the Earth is flat are listed but just with "small" letters! What I read now are Coanda? The Earth is flat, but some academies, scholars and experts are saying that is round and Romania is celebrating that the Earth is round How does this sounds to you?

Mainstream according to the sources

In a nutshell

  • Five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft
  • academic
  • several encyclopedia and history books
  • primary sources like the leaflets, magazines,books news from around 1910,1911, witnesses, Coanda's patents
  • articles and TV interviews
  • his endorsing as honorable member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or Romanian academy
  • special medal give by the city of Paris of his work on jet propulsion starting from 1910
  • several museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA presenting unique artifacts related the first jet aircraft)

Sources according to WP:IRS (please change it in case that something is misplaced)

  • Secondary Souces
    • Academic
- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990]

- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1991]

-Romanian Academy
-Royal Aeronautical Society
    • Scholarship
      • Monographs
        • Books
Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.
Stine, G. Harry, 1983 The Hopeful Future.
V.Firoiu, 2002 Din nou acasa
Gibbs-Smith, C. 1970 Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II.

(According to the rule generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars Gibbs-Smith can be considered as it was endorsed by Antoniu but caution as it is considered to contain speculations on evidence of absence and using incorrect sources.)

    • News organizations
      • Magazines
Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010 , several "Cer Senin" magazines
Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
Gérard Harmann , 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
Frank H. Winter , 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined

As per WP:IRS if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.

  • Primary Sources
    • 1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
    • 2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
    • 3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
    • 4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
    • 5) patents
  • Tertiary sources

Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft.