Talk:Paragliding/Archive 1

Tethered launches
Offer higher launches than mountain launches? Worth adding a sentence on how this is possible? E.g. launching from areas that are geographically higher but topologically 'flat', like a mesa? Especially as the preceding information says it's used for areas lacking 'high launch points', when I think it probably means 'a steep launch gradient' (e.g the edge of a mountain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritage.john (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tethered launches"?Manormadman (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ewa Wisnierska
Is Ewa Wisnierska's flight officially recognised as a World Record? If not, it should probably be removed or moved to a different section - although I will leave that upto those looking after this page. --Sesh 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is or will be recognized as a record, however it is one of the best publicised incidents of this sport and will probably stay in the memory of the public for quite a while. 84.107.206.62 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For a world record, one must previously file an 'attempt form' to the FAI and an FAI inspector must be present during the attempt. Ewa Wisnierska's flight was not an altitude attempt, but an accident. In addition she was unconscious, so her skill was not a factor on ther accidental height gain. Glad she is alive though. BatteryIncluded 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Radios
Radios used are PTT (push-to-talk) transceivers, normally operating in or around the FM VHF 2-metre band (144–148 MHz)

Do paragliders really use 2m ham radios on a regular basis? Wouldn't aircraft band (118 MHz to 135 MHz AM) radios make more sense? Or UHF FRS radios, which don't require any license at all, and can be legally used by pretty much anybody (and not just to talk to aircraft, like the aircraft band is meant for.) dougmc 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Which country or countires are you referring to? And the point is not what would make more sense, but what actually happens. Certainly, I have seen 2m radios widely used -- and used them myself -- for paragliding in Britain, France, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Italy and India. AC

There are lots of different types used in different countries. As always some standards are recognized in one country and forbidden in another. Especially Europe/USA simply cannot ever agree on thze same. In Europe alone I know three standards for non-license radios: LPD, PMR466, FreeNet. 2m band is practically not used there because it would require a license there. 84.107.206.62 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "2m band is practically not used there because it would require a license there" -- but 2m radios ARE widely used in France, Spain, Austria, Britain and Italy, at least -- I've used them myself in those countries to talk to many other pilots! And I had no licence. Manormadman (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

I've removed some information about the legal status of radio use that applies only to the United States. Please try to remember that America is not the world! Manormadman (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedbar animated picture
I must have stared at this animation for about 5 minutes trying to figure out exactly what it is showing. Someone that understands this, please add an explanation of what this is showing. I read the nearby text and still couldn't make it out. Slavlin (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a little jumpy for an animation. I am a complete beginner, and therefore entirely open to being wrong, but I believe the explanation is fairly simple. By pushing the speedbar down, you pull the leading edge down. But it's also connected to the B and C lines, with a 'lever' or 'reduction' occuring between each; so the centre is not pulled as hard as the front and the back even less than the centre. Overall, flattening the angle of attack, reducing lift and increasing forward velocity, as the wing becomes more of a blade that cuts through the air as opposed to a scoop that drags through it - the angle of attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritage.john (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In Fast Descents
I remove this line :

"The horizontal speed only increases very little, the flight path speed increases significantly." First because it lacks sources, and second because to my opinion it is false.

When Ears are done, the wing tends to increase the drag thus reducing the gliding ratio and reducing the speed on path. Waiting for confirmation 82.239.28.42 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Sletuffe

Legality
I think a section on Paragliding's legality in various countries would be interesting. I know in the US a license is actually -not- required, whereas for PPG the FAA does require a license. I have no idea how this carries over in other countries. Could someone with more knowledge about this add something? Rhathar (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

2 out of 3 external links seem absurd.
There ought to be lots of sites better than these. Heck, even youtube with paraglider search would be more informative.

My 2 cents.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just shopping around, I see federations, organizations, and associations that would make good external links. I only dabbled in this sport years ago in BC Canada. I don't really know which sites tickle the experts.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose http://www.paraglidingworldcup.org  ....it is a non-commercial org.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, per the external links guideline, the section is in good shape. I've removed the two newspaper links, and the "DMOZ" link is the recommended alternative to an excessive list of clubs. (DMOZ is an open directory project, where links can be submitted for filing under various categories.) Hope this helps. --Ckatz chat spy  22:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done on the removal of those two. I read some of WP:EL -- holy long batman! I shopped for orgs that were neutral and international, but only found one: the one referred to above. I'll put it in and see if it sticks. After all, one org wouldn't really constitute an excessive list of clubs. Cheers! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the references should be reworked. In the moment there is e.g. an individual site referenced - one should reference a neutral directory of sites as there are throusands of sites. Worse, the site references is also quite commercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.13.120 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Sport
Why is this a member of the extreme sports project? Paragliding may be a risk sport, but in most of it's forms it is not extreme. An 80 yr. old lady can learn paragliding. That is truly extreme but not in the sense of an extreme sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.13.120 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Safety
ADDED: BHGA observation of effectiveness of SIV training. ADDED: Fatality List with references for 2009 and 2010 through April.Nopara (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to a much earlier version of the intro to this section prior to Nopara malicious changes. Jontyla (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded Intro
The intro was tagged with lead_too_short so I have added some general info and removed the tag. Jontyla (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Added info
Added Safety, History, Learning to fly, info regarding paraglider wing inflation. The links on this page could do with amending, I've left them as they are for the moment.

Variometer should be linked. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:51, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Known as parapente in...
I assume it's known as Parapente in all of the Latin-American countries. After all, it is known as parapente both in Spain and Portugal. And at least in Mexico it is, too. Perhaps it would be reasonable to research about this a little, and finally add Latin America to the list of places where paragliding is known as parapente. --Afz902k 06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In France its also known as Parapente. Inherited from France also the Benelux countries use the term parapente, however along with their own translation of paragliding as well. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland this term (parapente) is not used however. 84.107.206.62 19:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Paragliding is not known as parapente anywhere IN ENGLISH! Parapente is the French, Portuguese and Spanish word for paragliding. Manormadman (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman.

How about some VidBits?
Gee, it sure would be cool to see a vidbit or two of this. Got one? To share?

Comparison should be moved
The Paraglider / Hanglider comparison should either have its own page, or else be lower down the order. People need to know what a Paraglider is before they are told about differences to another light aviation sport.
 * [[[There is a firm source of some sectors of contemporary confusion. The superset is hang gliders; all paragliders form a proper subset within the superset of hang gliders. So, it is improper just to set a "comparison" as no amount of fudging will make a paraglider be not a hang glider; paragliders are string-only-to-payload gliding wings which wings may be limp or with very much stiffening even with sticks and rigid wings; the system glides through an atmosphere. One cannot make a paraglider stop being a hang glider; but there are some hang gliders that are not paragliders. Without carefully sorting this matter, there will ever be confusion. Woglom in 1800s book brought in strongly "para-" in "parakites". Let the anchor move, which is mechanically done even on the ground, but move in free-falling brings on a the gliding form of parakites to be called paragliders; NASA picked up on such terms and did leadership that stuck in patent systems to this day; the paraglider may have metal booms, stiffened inflated booms, battens, even rigid-plate wings; but the string support of payload---that anchors during the glide is part of the sorting key in this matter. The recent faction of sport users do have paragliders, but that faction errs by thinking that they have the only paragliders that exist; no, paragliders have existed and still exist outside of their faction.  In the hang glider world (holds paragliders as a proper subset) there are hang gliders that are not paragliders, e.g. the hang gliders where no tether line is used during the gliding, that is, the pilot enters the rigid airframe after taking off. Differently the hang gliders that have a main set of tethers to hold the suspended pilot during glide are the type of hang glider that is a paraglider; hang gliding holds non-paragliders and paragliders; all paragliders are hang gliders; these things apply whether the suspended payload is a living human or a dead rock. The FAI is a private org that handles a faction of activity; its definitions supply its factions and interests, but such does not rule the aviation and engineering culture or the mechanical facts about aircraft function; their definitions and classes are for their private noteworthy use; one can note "FAI defines ___" but that does not force matters on all the other users of devices. So, e.g., there are three sorts of Rogallo Wing hang gliders: 1. rigid wing with pilot during glide playing himself into the airframe,2. airframed paraglider where the pilot as payload is suspended by a kiteline set while grabing the airframe to control it; 3. a limp-canopy paraglider (perhaps with stiffening all the to very airframed or even fully rigid--but where the payload or pilot is suspended without being able to grab the canopy above in a rigid coupling.   So, the article on paragliding will ever have a challenge until it sorts out the mechanical basis of its subject. Joefaust (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)]]]

Comparison
I guess I'm undertaking a cleanup of this page. I've tidied up the external links, added bits to the Gliders section, and now converted the Comparison section to tabular form & moved it down the page, as suggested above. I may be tempted to review other sections as I find time. CDV 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

History
Note that the article available on ScoutBaseUK (//www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs120705.pdf) is somewhat unreliable: it says Lemoigne was American, mis-spells Walter Neumark's name (as 'Newmark'), and suggests Neumark created the Para-Commander. I think this article may have led a previous contributor astray! CDV 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sports/competitive flying
I found the Disciplines section, which I’ve replaced with the Sports/competitive flying section, was lifted from www.kitexcite.com (along with some other sections already re-written), providing extra justification for replacing it. I don’t know a great deal about comps, so perhaps someone else will be able to improve this bit. cdv 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done?
I think I’ve finished with revising this article for now. I’ve had to exercise severe restraint not to write more than I have, but I think it’s now pretty comprehensive without (hopefully!) being so long as to bore the pants off people. I’ve learnt more writing it, hopefully others will learn more reading it. Does my love of paragliding show? cdv 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Parapente
Removed the aka 'parapente' as I could find no English-language use of the term. cdv 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with hang gliders
Under comparison with hang gliders, under "Speed range" it says poor wind penetration and no pitch control. Doesn't a paraglider's speed system count as pitch control? This greatly lowers the angle of attack and increases speed and penetration. Granted, the range is far from a HangGlider, but a Paraglider would be very limited without this feature.

No, it doesn't count as pitch control —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.10 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, speedbar and brakes count as pitch control. It should read "much less pitch control". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.46.118 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Joefaust (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)]]

Landing: vertical rather than horizontal speed
As part of the defacement cleanup I also removed (or more accurately didn't reinstate) the changes made about landing speed. Although not malicious, this information seemed to me to be incorrect, and the emphasis placed on it being a common misconception seemed to be uncalled for even if the information were correct - this is a general article and not aimed at specialists. If the author feels strongly that their information was correct then a good course of action would be to discuss it on the worldwide paragliding forum - paraglidingforum.com - and if a consensus is achieved then make any relevant changes here. Jontyla (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is seen that an unsignor on Oct.1 or 2, 2011 undid much expanding referenced work; we invite you to first discussion proposed changes. The narrow POV that you have tried to keep is something that will not stay as a neutral point of view comes to serve readers. I hold out that the unsignor might be you, Jontyla, as the actions follow your past rashness. Please come to the discussion table on points that concern you; and drop the personal attacks; we can work on bettering the article politely. Joefaust (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ==That forum is highly karma-controlled to keep a very narrow POV about paragliding. A polite presence ever on topic by several experts get downed in that forum; there is censorship of topic titles; there is a movement to "basement" for talks on rational topics that are simply not pulling the status quo of some commercial interests there; the moderator team allows a huge stream of vulgarity, name-calling, and off-topic smear of rational topics that affect paragliding safety and paraglider design; in no way does that forum allow rationale consensus for a robust view of paragliding. For you to direct such a narrow view fits your use of "rubbish" and "defacement" when you edit on this article, when in clear fact your edits have been promoting a very narrow view of commercial sport paragliding, which is just one branch of paragliding. By your call to have that forum be ruler proves that maybe you should step aside from this article. Instead of pointing to a very narrowized over-controlled forum, please stay to wider NPV referencing and enlarge past the single-type Jalbert sort sector; there is much more to paragliding than is yet shown to date by your editing. Let's cooperate to get a clear referenced robust article.  Joefaust (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious neglect of "paraglider" categorization and branches
The paraglider is definitely not just the Jalbert ram-air wing culture; that is one branch of the paraglider; there are firm mechanical branches of paraglider that stream into aviation of its beginning to now that are strictly not Jalbert ram-air parafoiled kite-glider wings. The patent system still streams with the solid non-Jalbert-parafoil paragliders. We do serious injustice in a narrow POV article that serves only one of the branches of paraglider used in aviation; the contemporary manufacturers of the fully-limp Jalbert parafoiled wings have a lot to gain to keep the narrow POV going in this article. David Barish did not use the Jalbert parafoil; rather he used the single-skin partial second surfaced airfoil wing to do free-flight-kite gliding that forms a branch of paragliding. NASA very starkly used framed paragliders for manned and unmanned paragliding. Tony Prentice in 1960 importantly made and used a string-controlled free-flight framed paraglider. The full branch of paragliding that uses the Rogallo Wing parawing paraglider is also definitely not a Jalbert ram-air paraglider. The stream of patents in the world that still use "paraglider" as the proper term for boomed (inflated and sticked) sailed gliders is strongly part of the fertile core of what a paraglider is. Not all hang glider are paragliders, but a very large segment of hang gliders are paragliders. Mechanically, it is rawly recognized by many experts that the string-controlled free-gliding kite system (payload or human body as resistive anchor, tether set, and kite wing)is a parachute-like-glider system, thus para-glider or paraglider; such terms and recognition was in the roots of aviation, teased into existence by the strong influencing book by Woglom in 1800s with "parakites" Parakites by Woglom as the rooting term; just have the anchor be free-falling rather than a moving human hand running or tree swaying. To let the one branch of current manufactures try to wipe out the rich fullness of paragliding for their own purpose of fast sales and profit is to cheat the readers of the world of robust paragliding opportuniy. Editors are invited to fully know and integrate a much more accurate presentation of paragliding than exists in the article of Sept. 2011. One editor in particular keeps carving out his POV that supports the narrow POV about paragliding to the unfortunate neglect of the richer fuller story of paragliding; he uses impolite language in this discussion space to rashly slam some of the other editors as progress evolves. That editor is asked to deal with a neutral stance and quite forcing the article to serve just the narrow Jalbert parafoil commercial sector; that editor seems not to know that both historically and contemporaneously that the limp string-controlled Jalbert wing used for free-flight kite gliding is firmly a sector of hang gliding, a true proper subset of hang gliding, whereas hang gliding encloses some non-paraglider systems. There is much work to be done on this article, if we are going to serve the world's readers with a neutral encyclopedic presentation of paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected the article for a week to stop the edit warring. Both versions look flawed to me--IP is removing sourced information, but the previous version contains numbers in brackets and no corresponding reference, improper direct links to outside webpages, etc. You all need to stop fighting and discuss the issue here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one side of paragliding is allowed to be presented here. Honest discussion and proper citations are vandalized. It is not sufficient to tell people to stop fighting. The history is very clear that opinion is being enforced to the detriment of impartial observation. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia that it has tolerated for years the minimization of dangers and removal of citations verifying the fact that paragliding has significant risk. It is, in fact, dishonest to present a heavily-weighted fun side while removing information that there are serious problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopara (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please unprotect the Paragliding article.  You or someone just obliterated some 20 hours of work with references. Thank you. And by the choice to overwrite my work instead of freezing at that point seems to show a choice that does not fit Wikipedia guides.  Jontly (?) did not come to discuss; he did damages without signing, I suspect that was he. The article is severely with a narrow point of view. Much work is urged to do justice to "paragliding" way beyond the interests of just a few current sellers of sport paragliding wings.  Paragliding is a large topic; readers deserve neutral point of view, not just a sales push of sport paragliding.  There is a need for two more articles: Sport paragliding    and one for the machine Paraglider.  And contesht on the how to do sport paragliding belongs in Wikiuniversity.  Is this note better here in your talk or below your note in the article's Discussion; thanks for tutoring me on this question; I don't not which place is most polite or most fit. Thanx.  Unsigner 88.23.255.168 (talk) had been asked to talk; he did not; he just now twice obliterated progress. And you froze at his second wipe out to the narrow POV; the article went back to the small; we are after NPOV for the large picture.   Please undo the freeze; freeze for a week at the larger work, not the smaller.  Joefaust (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll copy the response I gave on my talk page: I protected the article because several of you were edit warring over the content of the article. When admins fully protect because of a dispute, they don't look at the content and decide which is "correct"; admins have no special "vote" over how to make an article correct. The fact that the current version is the one I protected is not an endorsement of that version. Again, the only reason for full protection is to prevent people from just warring back and forth, and, instead, compel actual discussion on the article's talk page. I recommend that you start doing so; if the other parties refuse to discuss the issue, then I will prod them to do so. In fact, I'll actually go do that now. You may need to use our dispute resolution process if you can't solve the problem yourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: If, after 3 or 4 days, the IP refuses to come and discuss the issue, I will unprotect the article and you can revert back to the other version, and I'll then view the IPs reversions as edit warring. Again, please understand that I am not endorsing or opposing the current version.  Both version look highly problematic to me, given that neither version was particularly well sourced.  But if the IP won't actually discuss the changes, then it looks like consensus will support the other version. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia allows the creation of new pages, indeed the very nature of the concept promotes the idea. If this user feels the description of "Paragliding" does not fit his view, however minor that view may be, then he is free to create new pages such as he suggests: "Sport Paragliding", "Paragliding History", "Paragliding Safety", etc. A quick search of the OED, or any dictionary, would provide one with a description similar to that which has been on this page for nearly 10 years. If I may be blunt for a moment. It seems a little peculiar that after so many years with this page having contents that the majority of paraglider pilots seem happy with, that he suddenly wishes to change a vast proportion of it. It does rather smack of arrogance on his part, or some kind of attempt to lay down his minority view upon the rest of us. It's just not cricket, if you take my point. He can go ahead and put his view down on paper, as it were, just do it where it truly belongs. 88xxxx (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Just another small point to note. I am a paraglider pilot and as such do not live in a city with a permanent internet connection. We pilots tend to live in the countryside, it's where we do our flying. If this on-line discussion thing is to be taken to its conclusion and the administrators wish to be just, you might have to bear with me. The dial up connection is rather slow and I cannot sit in front of this in-damnable computer every evening, I'm sure you understand. 88xxxx (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You have no way of knowing if this page has been accepted by the majority of paraglider pilots. You can't revert an article to an older state just because you don't like it; you need to provide specific reasons that are wrong with the changes.  Wikipedia articles can and should change over time.  As I said before,  alot of this article, in both versions, is unsourced and thus questionable, so it definitely needs to be improved.  Finally, if this is the broad, large topic, it should cover all of the different types of paragliding (whatever those are) in brief; then we can make specific articles that expand more fully on each sub-topic.
 * Maybe, though, I should start somewhere a little more concrete--we're not going to get anywhere just saying "all of those changes are bad" or "they're all necessary". How about we start discussing something specific--that is, start with one specific thing that someone thinks needs to be changed.  Someone propose a specific change to the article as written now--I think, for example, that there was a specific concern about covering paragliding deaths. Could somebody explain what they want to say regarding this specific point, and see if we can establish a consensus on this, part by part? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you are completely correct when you say I cannot know if this page has been accepted by the majority of paraglider pilots, but I think history has borne witness to the fact that 100,000+ paraglider pilots have, over the past 10 years or so, left it as-is or helped to fine-tune it into the page it was. What a shame to lose that collective work thanks to the craftsmanship of just one or two outcasts in our sport, of course, I cannot speak for all pilots when I say this. Moving forward then. I would agree wholeheartedly with your pragmatic approach to dealing with their change requests. As you suggest, paragliding accident and fatality statistics would be a reasonable place to start. If we can see some concrete statistics with valid citations to the National Associations regarding accidents and deaths in our sport then perhaps we would be on the right path. Unfortunately, up to now we have not seen such data, we have simply seen opinion offered via links to private websites. This might help explain why several pilots are visiting this page and reverting the changes. 88xxxx (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have zero evidence for the notion that 100,000 paraglider pilots have viewed this article, much less edited it.....but...I'll start a new section on the death statistics. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 88xxxx states "If we can see some concrete statistics with valid citations to the National Associations regarding accidents and deaths in our sport then perhaps we would be on the right path. Unfortunately, up to now we have not seen such data, we have simply seen opinion offered via links to private websites." This is not true. Global fatality data is presented with hyper-linked citations to news reports at http://www.cometclones.com

All references and citations of medical journals reporting an excessive number of paragliding spinal injuries were deleted from this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&diff=452207939&oldid=452207100 All references and citations to reports of paragliding fatalities (example 2009) were deleted from this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paragliding&diff=359109479&oldid=359107379 This has been going on for years. I find it reprehensible that people come to Wikipedia to investigate paragliding but are unknowingly denied an objective look at both sides of the issue. Some who decide to pursue the sport based on what is allowed to be presented by the sport enthusiasts who censor content may make that decision without critical information. This could result in their being maimed or killed. It is an ethical obligation to fairly present both sides. You talk about the ideal that Wikipedia articles should evolve with new information or improved style. Consider that no tally of global paragliding fatalities was assembled prior to Rick Masters' effort beginning in 2008. Only a few national organizations were reporting some of their members' incidents and leaving outside visitors who were injured or killed to be added to their own country's accident gathering apparatus - if one existed. The result was an under-reported mess that paragliding enthusiasts seized upon to offer the opinion, blatantly promoted on Wikipedia, that paragliding is much safer than it really is. What in the world could possibly be wrong with pointing readers to a referenced list of over 800 paragliding deaths and hundreds of crippling injuries in less than a decade? Wikipedia editors have for years called out for more referenced material. Well, here is some and it's ugly. But that doesn't mean anyone has a right to keep it from being used. It's not research. It's not statistics. It's a list. A simple ugly list that sport paragliding enthusiasts do not want to see or see referenced in Wikipedia. I hope the mature editors who understand a neutral POV will recognize the significance and ethical consequences of this issue. Nopara (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 October 2011
The section titled "In-flight Wing Deflation (Collapse)" needs to be broken up into several smaller paragraphs. It's too hard to read as one large paragraph. Thanks, Michelle Ress

Safoocat (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ - please re-open after clarifying by suggesting the split points "...lastword. Firstword...". "Several" is commonly understood to mean "three or more" - did you really mean that? Seems like a lot for such a short section. --Lexein (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Change name of article to Paragliding (sport)
Recommended is that a change of name be made to Paragliding (sport) and then have a disambiguation page for the word "Paragliding"  whereon will be a collection of pages that for one includeds Paragliding (sport) as well as other articles like Paragliding (history)   where the full rich history of NPOV paragliding may be given its encyclopedic due. And then also Paragliding (sport safety issues) could be an article. Also on the disambiguation page will be links to coming other articles:  Paragliding (model flying), Paragliding (commerce), Paragliding (surveillance), Paragliding (instruments), Paragliding (safety). However, if the narrow point of view weaves into the other coming articles that sits just in the corner of sport paragliding, then the huge wider world of paragliding will again be kept from readers of Wikipedia. E.g. there are safety issues in scientific paragling, commercial paragliding, military paragliding, toy unmanned paragliding, unmanned weaponized paragliders for military and terrorist issues, etc. Right now, a very narrow part of sport paragliding is being pushed by an editor Jontyla (talk) whose talk on this page has been against Wikipedia politeness standards; that is, not even the broad table of sport paragliding is being permitted presence. Please unfreeze the article and change its name, so readers can have a disambiguation page on "Paragliding" so they may have option to reachn a broader picture. Thank you. Open to talk, unsigner 88xxxx or Jontla and others. What say others? Joefaust (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Wikified to reach a new article which is open for the Paragliding (sport)Joefaust (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sir, Wikipedia allows the creation of new pages, indeed the very nature of the concept promotes the idea. If you feel the description of "Paragliding" does not fit your own view, however minor that view may be, then you are free to create new pages such as you suggest: "Sport Paragliding", "Paragliding History", "Paragliding Safety", etc. A quick search of the OED, or any dictionary, would provide one with a description similar to that which has been on this page for nearly 10 years. If I may be blunt for a moment. It seems a little peculiar that after so many years with this page having contents that the majority of paraglider pilots seem happy with, that you suddenly wish to change a vast proportion of it. It does rather smack of arrogance on your part, or some kind of attempt to lay down your view upon the rest of us. It's just not cricket, if you take my point. Go ahead, put your view down on paper, as it were, just do it where it truly belongs, old boy. 88xxxx (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was dealing with paraglider research in the 1960s; In the 1970s I made and flew non-paraglider hangglider and also paraglider hang gliders. I was the first publisher in paragliding and founded the first international organization of pilots of paragliders in Self-Soar Association; then I cofounded USHGA and gave myself the sticky number of member #5 and assigned #1 to paraglider pilot-manufacturer Dick Eipper. 218 issues researched, edited, discussed, printed, mailed to subscribers around the world in 23 nations. In early 1970 I conceived and made happen the first seven meets; the first big one had only non-paraglider hang gliders; the other six had in them paraglider hang glders; then we understood that hang glders are of two sorts: paragliders and non-paragliders. A bulky professional history that continues today that has paraglider larger than the commercial core of limp fabric cult should not be hijacked by that recent noteworthy cult in an encyclopedia; a neutral point of view will be open to the fact that the recent cult belong classed well in the larger flow of paragliding, not hijack the rich flow that goes beyond the limp-sail cult of the sport sector.
 * * Jontyla (edited later for spellin) or ? IP 88xxx, change the name of the article to Paragliding (sport) and you will be more on target; the rise of sport paragliding cannot properly hijack a rich history of paragliding that goes easily into the 1800s onwards; that the tight sector of sport paraglider is popular does not win a logical takeover of "Paragliding" as "paragliding" is far larger than just the current sport sector.  That I am recently with focus on sport paragliding and wikipedia, my expertise recently starkly shows me how the hijacking in Wikipedia has happened.  If Wikipedia somehow prevents the better ordering of titles, then readers and Wikipedia will lose quality.  Do you have an objection to changing the name of this present article to fit more your POV to Paragliding (sport) ?   Would you address that question, as I will work toward that in order to have win, win, win: Win for sport paragliding, win for the broader activity of "Paragliding" and a freeing up of the term "Paragliding" for a disambiguation page so that people may find other articles that are being developed.  I just started Paraglider to which you are welcome to help on; but do not expect that article to sit and worship just one section of the machine paraglider, as paragliders go way beyond just sport paragliders.     Not arrogant, but discerning with expertise and 50 years of background on topic coming to serve as a fellow editor.  That many in your apparent camp have a desire for a narrow POV, please help work to get titles to serve the public; Paragliding (sport); Paragliding (science); Paragliding (toy); Paragliding (industry); Paragliding (military), etc.    These will need a serving disambiguation page reached by "Paragliding"   which should not be reserved for just one volatile and changing sport sector of paragliding.  I have no interest in namecalling, sarcasm, warring, personal attacks, rash and demeaning slams, etc.   There may or may not be lots of challenges. But as long as a small sector of paragliding prevents clarity for readers to reach the full spectrum of paragliding,then there will be appropriate logical tension.   If we stick with this lead article, then there should be sections in it that reach all the other sectors of paragliding which then could branch to other articles. But the introduction would have to then reflect all those sections appropriately and not let one sector create a narrow POV in the introduction. So, one way or another, all of paragliding will be getting attention. Which way do you want to go? Revamp in this article or retitle the article to say Paragliding (sport), so that the meta term can be used for disambiguation? If I am missing a third alternative, please suggest.  I deeply reject a small sector hijacking the overriding term; it is understood that sport hang glider people are comfortable in "paragliding" ...no problem in seeing that; the thoughtful ones among those faced with these discerning issues may well concclude...yes, easy, we are sport paragling, so Paragliding (sport) can serve us just fine...and let the big picture be used for disambiguation; in the end the service to the big picture will have trickle-down good effect on all sectors.   All types of readers win with a better encyclopedia; that is the goal of Wikipedia. What say you? Thanks for talking 88 Jontla. I see you are a member of a big sports forum of which I also belong; properly so, the flow of that forum is sport paragliding with its narrow interests; no problem; that fact should not hijack a bigger paragliding world than the sport sector. Joefaust (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't follow much of that last tranche of text and I don't know why you are accusing me of name-calling and referring to me as John or Johnster-88, or whatever, it's not my name and, unfortunately, it has rather clouded any point you were trying to get across, or any question you may have buried in there. You seem to be trying to include all sorts of flying equipment as a paraglider when a quick flick through any modern dictionary will tell the reader that a paraglider is a wing that us pilots fly. If you intend to reclassify kites or toy wings as paragliders then perhaps you need a quick reality check, as what you are suggesting is akin to including in the description of an automobile the 3-inch metal toys that children play with. 88xxxx (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry 88. Are you also the J___la person or not, spelling above who used "rubbish" so many times? Are you that person or not? What is your name? We know you as IP 88xxx and could look up the IP again, but IPs can change depending on the library one uses. Your timing, text, manner did seem to me that 88 xxx just might be the Jontyla (spell, I do not see it while in this edit field); as the La___ person of Pg forum as you; are you? Does not matter. Let's talk on points of the article. Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, my typo means that you will not read my talk input? Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As to model and toy paragliders: They are real, exist, and are being flown, patented, described and are included in many discourses as important for manned paragliders. And small unmanned paragliders are considered for very serious tasks, not to demean the toy value which is important in society. It is appropriate ina meta article on paragliding to face the important world of toy and model and scaled paragliders, manned and unmanned pargliders, paragliders of stripes big and small. I am not trying to bring in any novel matter; I want to bring in the real world of paragliders that goes beyond the corner in which you claim your personal sector; I fully care that sport paragliding along your experience is represented; but you are not experiencing apparently even much of sport paragliding, just your personal portions; there is more than the limited paraglider experience of your experience. The task of the meta article on paragliding is to give the description of the rich world of paragliding.  Your repeated emphasis does seem to argue well for having an article on Paragliding (sport); and if this present article stays the meta article, then the article hereon will have much more than sport paragliding and the introduction by WP standards will need to be updated as the article matures to do a good job on the wider picture of paragliding Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we get some reliable secondary sources that claim either way what the definition of paragliding/paraglider are? I don't mean dictionaries (those are tertiary sources, and not always clear enough for our purposes), but rather sources from academic journals, major trade/industry magazines, etc., that give a good definition/explanation?  In a certain sense, I'm a good test subject for measuring those definitions, since I know absolutely nothing about flying, paragliding, gliding, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How about step 1 reduce the exercise to paraglider. And then using that machine would given the gerund? Or evoluted uses of the term in context and see the machine infocus; such gets to the lived context that wordsmith sometimes use to make defintions that often simply miss what is going on.   Will work on the exercise Qwyrxian has suggested.  Joefaust (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is some start on the exercise: Effinger in his US Patent 3153877 runs a bit loose as he goes through his focus for many description paragraphs and then concludes: "Aircraft such as above described may be variously termed a "parawing," "flexwing" or "paraglider." He takes a bit of a broad brush to support his direct interests. Filing: Nov. 14, 1962. Already preceding him on those three terms was a considerable amount of work on those three terms. What is evident in Effinger's patent was a support for hung masses under parasol wing that could glide.

Woglom parakite in 1896. He carefully described that a kite has an anchor, a tether, and a wing. Major book. Parakites, A treatise on the making and flying of tailless kites for scientific purposes and for recreation. By Gilbert Totten Woglom. Published 1896 by G. P. Putnam's sons in New York [etc.]. Written in English.

Section 36, Parakites gliding " Up-hill." â€” It will be observed in any wind sufficient to float a train or single parakite, that the with- drawal of the cordage causes the parakites to glide upward on the wind and assume angles of elevation from the horizontal in excess of that attained by the same structures in fixed captivity, i. e., with the cordage belayed or held." The excitement of Musil in 1963 in his teachings in 3154269 indicated some near-to-him action around "paraglider" without effort to go earlier that Rogallo's Flexikite configuration; he did not make an effort to draw out the essence fully, but he did get close: "The consideration of a deployable lifting device for recovery of space vehicles has received considerable attention in the past few years. The most popular device which embodies this concept is known as the "paraglider" or Rogallo flexikite. It is currently undergoing considerable investigation sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."    So, we note that there was deep attention for several years before his March 18, 1963, filing of his patent. Musil in the patent on the ringwing was kissing close to already known formats of paraglider.  His ringwing still had wing, tether to payload.   Today we do not see in the popular sport of paragliding manned ringwing paragliders.   Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Spell edit:Joefaust (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Such indicates that there was recognition that a parakite upon further resistance brought through the tether causes the observed gliding upward. Later aerodynamicists and users easily knew these matters as driving the wing by use of a tether either by resisting with a fixed anchor or a moving anchor; the free gliding form is the anchor falling while sending the drive force of gravity through the tether to effect a pull on the wing. Hence, parakites for Woglum observations gave a gliding effect upon further resistance. That is precisely what aviation used for further application; parachutes dropped down with resistance sent through the shrouds to the various formats of resisting forms above; one will see inventors and engineers later in 1900s not changing these formats. The gliding parachute shows up as paraglider; and it was Woglom's publish book that set parakite in line for the paraglider understanding. Paraglider in large blossom occurred inthe 1950 and 1960s with worldaround publication of tethered-below masses to various wing forms above as unpowered gliding systems. Some uses of the term slipped to focus on just the wing part, but the literature shows full understanding that the full system required the driving payload and the usefulness of the tethering to keep center of gravity lower than the wing, as always occurs in parakites as the resistive anchor is part of the system and thus puts cennter of gravity low. A fixed soil anchor of a parakite might easily have tonnes of anchor force available to resist the wing in the wind. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But with Musil's lead we may look to 1948 at Rogallo's patent; Gertrude Sugden Rogallo and Francis Melvin Rogallo. He was an aeronautical engineer graduated from Stanford University; he patented a wing format for use as a kite, a glider, or powered aircraft. His invention required a tether set transferring the resistive effort of an anchor or dropping payload in order to have his wing form take its shape for deflections that resulted in glides. US Patent 2546078. He recites in his 1948 filing: "We further believe that our principle could be utilized in the construction of a toy glider or airplane, and we have met with some experimental success by attaching a weight in place of the control string and reflexing the trailing edge by means of a piece of string between the two ends of the the center line. In this connection it should be noted that whatever structure or framework for supporting weight, motors, etc. might be utilized in conjunction with our kit body and not secured to it in a manner which woudl tend to make the lifting surface rigid." Thus one can see that the tether set is part of the essence. The kite body is meant by Rogallo as the wing set (and in same patent he instructs on multiple wings in one whole system). And the weight for the glider effect is the resistive falling set. Consistency: resistive set, tether set, wing set. Such matches the 1896 Woglom's classic book teaching. And such will be found to persist through the renaissance of paragliding/hanggliding in 1960 by Tony Prentice and others through today. Eliminate the tether set and put the payload in the wing and get a non-paraglider, non-kite, but get a glider that is not a paraglider. The only difference between a parakite and a paraglider is that the anchor or resistive or driving complex is moving freely through the air or fluid. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ATW or anchor, tether, wing. History has been consistent with parachute, parakite, and paraglider. Fixed anchor kite: kite or parakite. No glide: parachute with falling payload. Gliding: paraglider. All had the tether set coupling the payload/anchor to wing. Neglect the tether set and get non-paraglider gliders. The same persists in 2011 sport paragliding. And the same ATW persists in non-sport paragliding circles. Does someone have something different?Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) As with most things, there will be those who get confused. Effinger missed by solidly attaching motor to a wing and writing that he still had paraglider, as he took the excitement over Rogallo's and NASA's effort that used the boomed parawing; he exceptionally had a non-paraglider glider that used a parawing. The wing is not enough for the then traditional paraglider. His conflict of interest was to get his patent through with a firm hand-hold mount that a motor could also be placed; he did not bother to carry the tether deal; but he kept the hung-belong part of the matter. Effinger had a non-paraglider hang glider for his foundation because of the rigid non-tether coupling of the payload.Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) In the 1800s it was well known in skill circles that one may replace the kite anchor with a free falling weight to get a kite that received airflow because of the falling weight at the bottom of the kite tether. Joefaust (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * New sports participants simply buying a commercial focused product and using it does not attain the thrust to overcome a long centuries old flow of professional aeronautical knowledge base. Nevertheless, the OZONE paraglider is a paraglider: ATW: falling anchor, tether set, wing. No problem there. The problem is arising when someone's narrow view does not let in the fullness of history's flow of alternatives. With the full flow and the challenges of present problems inventors will most likely continue to bring innovations and changes to the paraglider scene; but WP is not a crystal ball, so we do not go there; but WP does want robust presentation of noteworthy aspects of a subject to be presented in mature articles.  Such will include the one-tether paraglider and the distinct one-liner paraglider; yet I suspect IP 88 and also Jontyla will wince and struggle about the one-tether paraglider, yet such is the oldest and still is very present even in today's free-flight world full full colors. Young upstarts have been trying to not see what has been fully evident in free-flight hang gliders as they try to hijack "paraglider" to a narrow view of just what they are using from some commercial makers.   The Falcon 3 hang glidr is a paraglider using the single-tether format with the tether short enough to let the pilot grab the wing when he or she wants to effect some extra control. The recent spike in commercial limp canopy paragliders has been trying to forget that airframed paragliders of single tether are paragliders by the thrust of much longer and deep history.  Otto Lilenthal did not have a paraglider hang glider as he did not have the tether set. But NASA thrusted the options of framed parawings that brought in a high focus on some short-tehter options that Barry Hill Palmer explored in 1961, Mike Burns explored in 1962, John D. explored in 1963... all short-tethers using parawing to net a paraglider. The long string exploration by fellow to Rogallo ...David Barish went the gliding parachute path with long tethers and limp wing to get a paraglider where hanging pilot in the paraglider hang glider could no longer grab the wing for control but relied on string pull to control the flight. Barish was not the actual birther of paraglider, as Jalbert and Rogallo and others fully knew governable parachutes. The words do not do the trick; look to the engineers and designers who saw the essence of the machines; and they all came up with the same: falling mass tether to wing: if the wing was tally symmetrical for just drag drop: parachute; if gliding was effective, the machine was a gliding kite system: paraglider.  This all suffices to cover all of sport paragliders in popular note in 2011.  The narrow point of view is not to allow in the rich history and multiple alternative that have been extant noteworthily in history that continues to be written up to today. There are references for all these points from reliable sources; original research is not needed; only work to bring up the valuable works of others that are out there to bring in for readers of WP. Joefaust (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh....I feel sorry that you're doing so much work, and none of it is useful for our purposes. Everything you did about is original research.  You're using primary documents like patents, as well as analyzing the actual construction of devices, to try to figure out some core definition.  All of this would make a fascinating book, or magazine article, or even blog post. You cannot arrive on a definition this way.  Again, what I asked is: can someone please find a reliable source (like, maybe, a key, famous book on paragliding, or an overview article in a reliable sporting magazine, or something of that sort) that defines paragliding/paragliders?  I don't want seventeen different references about all these historical points that you yourself add up to determine a definition; I want one reference that provides a clear definition.  Well, more than one reference is okay, but we need references that state "Paragliding is...." followed by a definition.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Qwyrxian. The British national body (BHPA) has as reasonable description of paragliding here: http://www.bhpa.co.uk/paraglide/index.php The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (http://www.fai.org/about) who manage and control all air sports worldwide classify paragliders here: http://www.fai.org/hang_gliding/paragliding. We do have some standard texts that are used by pilots, they act as both introductory guides and manuals, Dennis Pagan's "The Art of Paragliding": http://www.amazon.com/Art-Paragliding-Dennis-Pagen/dp/0936310146 & http://www.pagenbooks.com/ or perhaps Ian Currer's Touching Cloudbase, A Complete Guide to Paragliding: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Touching-Cloudbase-Complete-Guide-Paragliding/dp/0952886219 Likewise, there are a few magazines dedicated to paragliding that are either available through subscription or are directly produced by the National Associations. Usually the CAA require the national bodies to have a mechanism of communicating changes (such as airspace changes) to their membership: International magazine: http://www.xcmag.com/about-cross-country/ US (USHPA): http://www.ushpa.aero/magazine.asp UK (BHPA): http://www.bhpa.co.uk/bhpa/skywings/index.php 88xxxx (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have just had an idea. There are more French paragliders than anyone else in the world, I believe there are well over 20,000 pilots and it's generally regarded to be because they have the Alps, one of the worlds best paragliding locations. Wikipedia is available in French, I believe, so if you want a quick overview on how they define paragliding why not go and have a look at the page put together by the French & other French speaking nations. In French paragliding is "parapente". Perhaps we'll see if they constantly refer to such accidents throughout the page or if they title their page "Parapente (Sport)" of just "Parapente". Likewise, do they have a link to a list of fatalities? Perhaps you will need to run it through Google Translate as maybe, like me, you don't speak French. It's just an idea, but it might give you a perspective on why it is only the English description of paragliding that is expected to have such lists and be renamed and defaced, etc by these two users. 88xxxx (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just took my own advice and found the following under the title "Accidentologie": "Même si la pratique du parapente est classée dans les sports à risque, les avancées technologiques ont significativement réduit le nombre d'accidents depuis les années 1980. En moyenne, en France, il y a moins d'une dizaine d'accidents mortels par an pour environ 30 000 pratiquants soit un taux d'accident mortel d'environ 0,026% ou 0,26‰ par an9." which states that on average there are 12 deaths per year of the 30,000 pilots, giving an accident rate of 0.026%, or 0.26% per year". They includes a citation to the FFVL, their National Federation 88xxxx (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something of the order of 10 is off in the phrase of "0.026%, or 0.26% per year" Joefaust (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joe, 88xxxx's quote was correct but he clearly made a translation typo. 0,026% and 0,26‰ are the same, in the english version he accidentally replaced ‰ with %. Incidentally, the figure 12 is also a translation error, "une dizaine" is 10 not 12, so the correct translation is "less then 10" rather than 12.Jontyla (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Easily inside sport one sees oneself as sport; the challenge is that paragliding has been happening outside of sport; and the mother article will be disambiguating the matter in order to serve readers with a NPOV about paragliding. Do you have reliable source for those figures; maybe Turkey or India now has more paragliders going than the French; now is pretty close to October 8, 2011.  Please refrain from claims of "deface" for contributors in good faith editing; such continued attacks may merit a visit from a WP admin. You have been asked before about that. Joefaust (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the translation errors, I used an online translation website as I don't speak French. The point still stands, I feel. Why would the other language versions describing paragliding be much the same as the current English one if our language definition were so wildly wrong? I say it's because it isn't, and I suggest that my example, the largest paragliding nation, somewhat proves the point that this page correctly represents paragliding and that the proposed changes are bunk. 88xxxx (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

external link deleted
i have deleted the external link HangGliderHistory Timeline, includes paragliders as a class of hang gliders and when i clicked on it the the url redirected to an advertising site! Topmark 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The content was moved to: http://www.energykitesystems.net/hgh/to.html  Someone may install the link. Joefaust (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Idea: Form a separate article called Paragliding (sport)
Paragliding properly encompasses a very wide range of vehicles over wide scales and for very many purposes. One of the purposes and activities in that large space is the activity of single or two persons foot launching for sport and recreation which is "sport paragliding". To distinguish "sport paragliding" from toy unmanned paragliding, from UAV military paragliding, scientific paragliding, industrial paragliding, etc, perhaps an article dedicated to "Sport paragliding" would serve encycopedia readers. Already some editors have noted that the present article is moving to be an instruction how to guide which is not for Wikipedia, but more for Wikiuniversity. At some point the energy of editors to put all that sport paragliding into this general article on "Paragliding" will injure the article's value. Moving to secondary articles and to Wikiuniversity, etc. seems to be the direction needed. This present article should stay encyclopedic of "Paragliding" and do a good job at it. A good job for "Sport Paragliding" would best fit in a dedicated article. Joefaust (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been started: Paragliding (sport). It is open to advance WP mature contributions on the sector of Paragliding that is sport. A shorter section in this present article on Sport paragliding could use the template for main-article pointing to point to Paragliding (sport).  In that main article Paragliding (sport) there will be natural sections that forward sport paragliding.   Differently, in this article on Paragliding there will be room for many non-sport paragliding activities manned and unmanned:  Military paragliding, photography-based paragliding, energy-production paragliding, surveillance paragliding, entertainment paragliding, physical fitness recreation paragliding, historical paragliding, unmanned toy paragliding, etc.    And the main article Paragliding will become fruitful to guide readers to Paragliding (commerce), Paragliding fatalities, Hang gliding fatalities, Kite types as paragliders are a kite type and paragliding is a type of kiting, and much more. This article Paragliding is needed, I hold, by WP to serve the world with a grand panorama of encyclopedic articles where paragliding is robustly present. No original research; all sourced to noteworthy reliable sources! Verifiable.  Right now sport paragliding takes up all the space of a key noun and is presently blocking the rich WP tree of service.  The sport editors now have Paragliding (sport) to showcase well the sport of paragliding; go for it.  Joefaust (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has been deleted by WP admins. It should never have been started until this discussion reaches a consensus. In addition, it consisted of little else than a repetition of Joe's views about PG dangers and a single link to a commercial page where you could order a book. Jontyla (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The debate is not yet concluded and the page may be unprotected when the LOCKED FOR DISCUSSION PROTECTION process concludes according to WP process steps
This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above: It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. 88xxxx (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Contrarily I do not recognize as you claim; I was saying that we have the best available in the article citation; those could be improved if someone finds better. WP could use, at least in the be-bold rule, the best set of sources; the set of citations can go to other recent years once this discussion is concluded. In no way need we wait for some crystal-ball future; we can go with best resource now. WP standards aims for reliable sources; that is ever relative to the type of data; that a person is announced dead has various levels of certification; that newspapers and clubs and churches note and celebrate the loss of John Doe rides hide as notification that a person died, but does not prove such. Joefaust (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ** I clarify: The sport section of paragliding (a section that does not yet exist in the freeze time right now Oct. 8, 2011) within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place than the good place we have available in the citations in Paragliding fatalities to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders than what was contributed by NoPara; I have been looking for best source and have not yet found a better one than that which we see in the collection of citations presenting in Paragliding fatalities and more of same that can be had for recent years; I am completely open to find a better resource, as always, on any article in WP. Account 88xxx is not seeing the meaning of my quote and trying to say what I recognize or not. WP guides that via bold editing one could use the best available to date, which is the case. This moved remark has been extended in face of the wrong interpretation of account 88xxx FFD; one can see first quote in record above. 88xxx attacks off topic on my person in PGforum are not fit for family time view. Perfect futuristic best conceivable level for citations is not what WP calls for; indeed citations are not always needed if the source is available in the world and the matter is verifiable; 67 deaths to date by paragliding is verifiable and could be given good citations for in 2011. When editors have clickable sources for such, then that could give more robust knowledge to the reader. One click for one person should not be seen as indiscriminate and not excessive. Joefaust (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP has now categories Death by paragliding  and also Death by hang gliding    Joefaust (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that we should wait for a WP admin and get an expert, independent opinion on whether your sources are considered acceptable to WP standards. In this talk-page there are links to sites that hold more reliable accident data than your "best yet" or "best available" sources, they simply don't validate your comments or your opinion. By your own admission you are openly asking for "better" sources as you do not have any that support the changes you wish to make to this page. I say you are admitting failure on your part when you ask for "better" sources, otherwise, why would you ask? I would like the WP admin to consider what you have written as an admission that you cannot justify your changes and that he ask you to refrain from trying to re-apply them. 88xxxx (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

'''Can an admin please review the edits dated 00:22 to 00:42, 9 October 2011 on this talk-page as the user "joefaust" has edited my comment above. He has changed what I have written and changed the title of this section after I created it'''. The page history will show that the last few edits to this page have changed my comment !!! The revision dated 23:51, 8 October 2011 shows my original text. I find this behaviour absolutely reprehensible. Surely this type of behaviour is not tolerated on a talk-page at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone needs to ask user "joefaust" to simply add his comments to this page, not edit other users comments should they disagree with his own opinion. Such behaviour is hardly becoming of a user with a valid point of view. I originally wrote QUOTE

This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above:

19:32, 8 October 2011: "The sport section of paragliding within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders; I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better; I am completely open to find a better". It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. END QUOTE

I will start a new section as I originally intended. Perhaps user "joefaust" will have the good manners and education to simply write what he thinks rather than try to edit and delete what I think.88xxxx (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The debate is concluded and the page may be unprotected
This page was protected by WP admin, Qwyrxian, after many changes added by user "joefaust", referred to here as "Death Statistics", were undone in order to stop edit-warring, the endless "to-and-fro" changes that would likely ensue. I think we can safely say that user "joefaust" has agreed that his changes were not up to WP standards when he says above:

19:32, 8 October 2011: "The sport section of paragliding within an article on Paragliding might one day have a more comprehensive place to get the collection of worldwide persons who have died in sport paragliding, but using best-yet collection seems a natural win for knowledge for the section on sport paragliding; does anyone know of a more robust collection for worldwide fatalities in sport paragliding sector that uses string-control of limp-canopy kite gliders; I have been looking for best source and have not yet find a better; I am completely open to find a better".

It would appear he now recognises that the details originally posted were not up to WP standards. So much so, that he is asking a general question to the readers to help him find citations for the information that he wishes to add, as he has yet to find such to support it. Are we to presume that he will agree not to try and add such "best-yet" details to this page and agree to wait until he has "better" sources with citations that meet WP standards before adding any further details and causing further disruption to this page? If so, then I think the admin would be prudent in unprotecting this page. 88xxxx (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"joefaust" please do not edit my comments above. I am writing them in good faith such that an independent WP admin may review the facts as I see them and come to his own conclusions. He will be free to ignore my opinion as you are. I am not asking you to agree with me, but please respect my opinion. 88xxxx (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the main problems and differences of opinion lies in the validity of the citations and references being used for the suggested changes and this is a significant sticking point here. "nopara" is right when he says paragliding is dangerous, paraglider pilots acknowledge this and the wikipedia entry for paragliding should reflect this. I know, I am a paraglider pilot and the cost of my life insurance reflects this. I for one, along with most of the paragliding community, do not recognise the "cometclones" website and its list of links to news articles as a valid citation for data or for providing annual accident/incident statistics. Now being pragmatic, I'm sure we would all agree 100% accurate data is impossible to gather because some accidents go unreported and eye witnesses cannot always be reliable. The National Associations worldwide do collect and publish accident data, usually collected direct from the pilots, unlike the "cometclones" website which seems to collect news reports from the mainstream media who are not well versed with respect to paragliding. To try to find and example for non-pilots to grasp; who would you rather believe when looking for aviation statistics, the Civil Aviation Authorities or a website with links to news stories? I know where I stand on this issue, and I know I'm in the majority here. It's why the consensus of opinion on this page is forming to show that there are only two users here with this minority opinion, I, and another user commenting here, have managed to have posts removed from the largest international paragliding forum as they refer to this debate. We felt it would be detrimental to this debate if hundreds of pilots came to this talk page and backed our stance that the "cometclones" website should not be referred to as containing data, even though it would confirm a consensus of opinion. The WP definition of "citation" refers to "reliable sources", and to help non-pilots understand my viewpoint, I would ask them to consider the foloowing example; who would one believe when looking for aviation statistics, the Civil Aviation Authorities or a website with links to news stories?  88xxxx (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)