Talk:Wright Flyer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

First flying machine

The controversy about the first flying machine already has its own article, and need not be attacked in this article. The part about 14-bis is already found in the article on the Wright brothers, so in the interest of avoiding redundancy, I have removed that section in this page. I think it would be appropriate to move the part about 14-bis into the article about the first flying machine. Willy Logan 21:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. However, a reference to the 'first flying machines' article would be a good idea to make it clear where such discussion should go. I've added it.Blimpguy 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

An anonymous editor added the following to the opening. It is clearly NPOV, and I have reverted it:

Much of it is vacuous. Even the 1905 Flyer has serious flaws, but it flew, really flew and the Wrights were there first, building a meticulous, systematic, thoughtful, creative, and persistent program to spectacular and unprecedented success.

The same editor also added this. It brings up some good points, but it needs reworking:

Every flight of the aircraft on December 14 and 17 -- under mildly insane conditions on the 17th -- ended in a forced landing (two on one flight when it bounced) or a crash. Also, turns were not demonstrated. In 1904, the Wrights found they needed redesign and new techniques to fly successfully, achieving these goals at the end of the 1904 program and even more decisively in 1905. The 1903 Flyer was a magnificent test vehicle, but its mythical status has obscured its proper place in the incredible developmental program leading to the Wrights mastery of flight in 1905.

Willy Logan 02:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Orville and Wilbur weren't licensed pilots, couldn't that have contributed a great deal to the high crash rate in the beginning? -Me

Wrong Location

The wright flyer is currenly on display it's own gallery, so the picture is wrong.... -NWeinthal


Picture

What about this picture? Randroide 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

that's a good replica of the 1909 Wright Military Flyer at the Air Force Museum Dayton Ohio. The real one has been in the Smithsonian since 1911. Koplimek (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An absolute fact?

"It was the first successful powered, piloted, controlled heavier-than-air aircraft." Please give references for this statement, has the pope declared this as an absolute fact, or what is the basis for this statement, formed as an absolute fact? It is not the task of wikipedia to establish absolute truths. That statement needs a reference to an authority who says it is an absolute fact, or the sentence must be changed or stricken. According to whom? And where do you find anybody who can tell us what the absolute truth is? Roger491127 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because nobody else corrected the sentence I did it myself. You are welcome change it to another reference, as long as it is not presented as an absolute truth without a reference to which institution you use to back up an absolute truth. Roger491127 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you waited an hour and 15 minutes, and then added A lot of people think this? The usual is to wait a few days at least, if not a week. That's not an encyclopedic statement btw, and I would have removed it even if I wasn't adding a source. The italics not below the first paragraph was actually sufficient to call into question the statement, though I have moved the link into the "See also" section, which is where such links usually go. I hope the stamet and link I have added meet with your apporval, but if not, I'd appreciate it if you would discuss it here first. - BillCJ (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was quite amused by the list of "reportedly" items claiming that various others beat the Wright Brothers. If the evidence was there, there would be no need for "reportedly". The charge that it's necessary to maintain some kind of "myth" about the Wrights being first, due to the need of Americans to claim it, looks to be the opposite - that America-haters are desperate for something to take away the "Wright"-ful claim. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
While I wouldn't have worded it quite so strongly in places, I concur with the sentiments. One hundred years from now, there will probably be people who claim that Americans weren't the first to land on the Moon (if they'll even admit Americans ever did in the first place), and some may even cite Jules Verne as proof! The fact of the matter is that their first flight and the developments that followed changed the world - even if they really weren't first, they were the ones that inspired all the others that follwed them, not these then-unknowns that are still unknown. - BillCJ (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Regrettably, we already have our share of dim-witted Americans who don't believe their countrymen landed on the moon. DonFB (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right. Even if some (or even one) of those others beat the Wrights to the punch, nothing came of it, so it doesn't matter. Maybe a better comparison would be Christopher Columbus vs. Leif Ericsson. OK, so the Vikings came here first. But did it matter? No. Columbus' arrival is what mattered, which is why he still primarily gets the credit (or blame, depending on one's viewpoint). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of other not well reported or proven motor driven flights (Weisskopf/Pearse), the Wright Flyer always required a substantial speed of wind to start against or in many cases a catapult launch. Therefore, it was not a motor driven "self-sustained and controlled aircraft". The first aircraft according to this definition was flown and recognized worldwide (of course just first "european" airflight in the English Wikipedia) by Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont. Pjotr Morgen 01:39, 14 July 2008

The Wright flights near Kitty Hawk in 1903 were roughly equivalent to the straight-ahead 15 to 30 second flights of Santos-Dumont in the 14-bis in 1906. Wright flights in 1905 which lasted more than a half hour circling an Ohio field were, by definition, "self-sustained and controlled," regardless of their acceleration to takeoff speed by catapult. DonFB (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources for any claims you add to the article, or they WILL be removed as OR/POV. The issue is covered in First flying machine, and that's the place to fight your battles, not here. - BillCJ (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Where I have to fight battles is not anyones concern. It is not anyones concern to define any of these issues as battles. The facts are: the Wright flyer was never a self-sustained aircraft, because it needed headwind of about 25 miles/hour or a catapult launch until end of 1906 or even later. At least there were not sufficient independent witnesses outside the US at any time to see such a self-sustained flight of the Wright brothers. That is quite simple to understand and sources will be given within the next days. Pjotr Morgen 00:45, 17 July 2008

There's no argument that the Wrights used a catapult beginning in September 1904. It is historical fact. Five-minute circling flights that year and half-hour flights in 1905 demonstrate the Flyer was "self-sustained" and controlled. Regarding witnesses, you're right: there were no "witnesses outside the US" to the flights. That was a question people raised in 1906. But it is not 1906 anymore. Today, photographic and documentary proof is easily available. Dozens of historical photographs in the U.S. Library of Congressfrom 1903-1905 show the flights. Dozens of books are available (see References in the Wright brothers article for some examples.) The catapult and headwind facts are well-known to aviation historians. Your personal interpretation of those facts disagrees with the overwhelming majority view held by the historians. I look forward to seeing your sources to learn if you have discovered legitimate experts who can overrule the worldwide community of aviation historians and prove your point. DonFB (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it very simple for non-aviation historians: The Wright Flyer did not have the capacity to start ITSELF until late 1906 (or even later), even though you may define catapult started or headwind of more than 35 km/h requiring flights as SELF-SUSTAINED flights. Unfortunately, this fact has always been concealed for the US and UK public as in the current WIKIPEDIA article. Pjotr Morgen 01:27, 21 July 2008
"Self-sustained" is a term of your devising. "Sustained flight," which the historians speak of, means continuing without loss of velocity or altitude. The successful circling flights in 1904-1905 prove beyond rational doubt that the Flyer had that ability. The headwind at Kitty Hawk subsituted for a long acceleration run, which was impractical at the site. The catapult in Ohio performed the same function, for the same reason. Contrary to what you have written, the Flyer did not require a 20+ mph/35+ km/h headwind. It flew in a wind that strong in North Carolina because the brothers did not want to wait another day for calmer conditions; they wanted to finish and travel home for Christmas. They never again piloted a Flyer in such a strong wind. If you have read the entire article, you will know that contrary to what you wrote, it does not "conceal," but explicity refers to both the headwind at Kitty Hawk and the catapult in Ohio. Legitimate historians do not obsess over the headwind and catapult because those issues are of no significance compared to the Wrights' success in researching, designing, building and flying the first successful airplanes; unfortunately, only willful or poorly-informed detractors want to use those issues to disqualify the Wrights. DonFB (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any of the Wright flights did not require substantial headwinds of a minimum of 35 km/h. Otherwise catapults would not have been necessary at other locations. These questions are not an obssesion, but are the critical historical points. First of all, the introductory section of this article is misleading: "The Wright Flyer (...) was the first powered aircraft designed and built by the Wright brothers. The flight is recognized by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, the standard setting and record-keeping body for aeronautics and astronautics, as "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight".[1]." These statements are wrong in that way that the make any reader believe that the Wright flyer could start by its own engine, which was never the case. Therefore, it has to be clarified in the above mentioned introduction that the Wright flyers required various aiding devices or circumstances for a succesful start. Contrary to what you wrote - for whatever honest reason, e.g., being an US patriot - there is no mentioning of any catapult in Ohio or any headwind in the current article. The only hint that there could be something wrong with the myth of the Wright flyer is " ... 2003 from Kill Devil Hill. Although the aircraft had previously made several successful test flights, sour weather, rain, and WEAK WINDS prevented a successful flight." The term "detractor" only applies to someone ignoring the achievements of other more significant inventors in early aviation, such as Gustave Whitehead or Santos-Dumont. Pjotr Morgen 20:29, 21 July 2008

This preoccupation with headwinds is baffling. An aircraft that can take off and rise above ground effect —with zero groundspeed because of a headwind—is still in powered flight. In fact, large birds—which are the very model which people have classically treated as the raison d'être for human flight—instinctively generally start off from level ground into any headwind or breeze immediately available; the stronger the headwind, they happier they are likely for it; and no reasonable person stands around and laughs and points at their aeolian crutch. JohndanR (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • * Even today aircraft get weather reports(wind speed, direction of wind, pressure etc the same as the Wrights did) before taking off from airports. Aircraft still take advantage of wind conditions after all these decades since 1903. Observe next time you take a flight from an airport.

The 1903 machine used no catapult, the majority of the flights of 1904(May-September) were without catapult, not all flights of 1905 were with catapult, Wilbur's Hudson-Fulton flights used no catapults just the launching rail cause he had no wheels. Catapults or no catapults, they don't make the aircraft fly and stay in the air. The machine has to be able to do that from the efficiency of it's design. Koplimek (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct: this article does not mention the headwind and catapult; they are mentioned in the main Wright brothers article. I am sorry for the mistake. Here is what Wilbur said in 1904 about the Flyer's takeoff speed: "While the new machine lifts at a speed of about 23 miles [per hour], it is only after the speed reaches 27 or 28 miles that the resistance falls below the thrust. We have found it practically impossible to reach a higher speed than about 24 miles on a track of available length...." From Wilbur's comment, it is clear that a breeze of much less than 20 mph (35 km/h) was sufficient for takeoff, contrary to your conclusion. Wilbur also said "winds are mostly very light" at the field (Huffman Prairie in Ohio). Neverthless, the Wrights made about 50 takeoffs there before they began using the catapult. There is no evidence (nor was there a requirement) that any of those takeoffs was done in a wind of 20 mph or more. You also incorrectly conclude that if strong winds were not required, "catapults would not have been necessary at other locations." Wilbur did use the catapult in Europe in 1908, but by then he had a more powerful engine and used the catapult by preference. It was a safer way ot taking off than a long ground run. When the French Aero Club threatened to disqualify Wilbur from making a prize-winning flight because of the catapult, he lengthened the rail and took off without the catapult (and won the prize). Other than a few jealous Aero Club bureaucrats, the many thousands of expert and ordinary witnesses to Wilbur's European flights did not snub their nose at his feats because of the catapult (as a number of revisionist Wikipedia editors are prone to do). Rather, they joyfully embraced his achievement for what it obviously was: the solution to an age-old challenge.
Criticism based on the headwind and catapult completely and foolishly disregards the Wrights' pioneering achievements in successful control and effective aerodynamics, which the Flyer represented and which became the basis for all later airplanes. That is the importance of the Flyer, not that its engine was a few horsepower short of desirable strength.
Santos-Dumont was a more significant inventor than the Wright brothers in the specialty of lighter-than-air flight but not heavier-than-air. His first fixed-wing aircraft, the 14-bis, did not introduce any innovations to aviation. His short, straight flights in that machine were significant because they were publicly witnessed and stimulated other pioneer aviators in Europe to increase their efforts. Neverthless, two years after the 14-bis flights, European aviators still did not know how to make a coordinated banking turn, nor did they even understand the concept. Wilbur's flights introduced them to it and they rushed to adopt it. The achievements of Whitehead are subject to much controversy and doubt, and other than possibly some of his work with engines, none of his inventions have ever been shown to have contributed to progress in aviation. In any case, this article is not titled, "History of the Invention of the Airplane." Far from ignoring Santos-Dumont and Whitehead, I have made signifcant contributions (and corrections!) to those articles.
The Wright Flyer did use a headwind to gain sufficient airspeed to take off from level ground at Kitty Hawk, but did so under its own engine power. If you disagree with the FAI statement, I suggest you file an objection with them. If you feel the wording in this article's introduction should be changed or expanded, please do so, but in a way that is explanatory, not as an accusatory effort to debunk a "myth". The "critical historical points," as you put it, are that the Wright Flyer embodied the Wright brothers' invention of three-axis airplane control and their pioneering airfoil and propeller research, all factors which enabled the airplane to make the first sustained and controlled flight, even though its engine was less powerful than those used by other, unsuccessful inventors at the time. The only "myth of the Wright flyer" that might exist would result from deliberate efforts to re-write history and distort or disregard the importance of the Flyer and its inventors. DonFB (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pytor, if you say the Wright Flyer's flights(1903-1905) didn't have sufficient witnesses then the same could be triply said for Whitehead & Richard Pearse. The Wrights had viable & credible witnesses(not to mention back issue newspapers) but didn't seek out mainstream press after they witnessed the debacle that happened to poor Samuel Langley by the media. It's also important to recognize the three Wright Flyers as three distinct machines unto themselve all the process of increased development & knowledge gained by the brothers. Once you understand the step-by-step methodical approach by the Wright Brothers, you can then appreciate the way they beautifully & efficiently invented the airplane. The airplane wasn't invented in one fell swoop. Inventions, especially one as complex as an airplane, don't happen that way. As far as witnesses to their flights the Wrights had to stop flying in October 1905 because they no longer had the secrecy(or patent) they wanted and scores of townspeople were witnessing the flights and talking about it. It also seems the Santos-Dumont argument has found it's way from Youtube-to-Wikipedia. Laughable. But interesting all the same. Im pretty sure the Wrights are laughing in heaven. Koplimek (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're in the Air Force, now

Since I can't find it, let me post this here: "The Aeronautical Board, which conducted the official tests of the 1909 Flyer, were Lt. Frank Lahm, Lt. George Sweet, Maj. Charles Saltzman, Maj. George Squier, Capt. Charles Chandler, Lt. Benjamin Foulois and Lt. Frederick Humphreys." From http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=529&page=260 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekphiler (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FAI

I had removed the FAI citation because it inaccurately implied that the FAI cites a 1903 Wright brothers flight in its official list of aviation records. A search of the FAI website does not show any such record, and a private email I received from FAI in response to my question states, "The flight of the Wright Brothers has been considered a historical event but never has been given an official "grade" by the FAI." I have re-written the article's introduction to more accurately cite the FAI view. The article published by the FAI (linked in this Wikipedia article's citation), although obviously written with sincere admiration, contains a number of inaccuracies and apparent fabrications. DonFB (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing on the FAI site that states this is not an offical site of the organization. I'm certainly not going to base my analysis on a letter that's not verifiable. Please gain a consensus to remove this, rather than continue to remove first. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't realize this was your article, or I wouldn't have asked you to discuss your changes first. I'll move on. - BilCat (talk)
A revision to correct misleading text is not a symptom of "ownership". I compromised with your objection to removal and restored the citation, but with a more accurate context. You seem to have misunderstood the issue ("...this is not an offical site..."). I pre-Discuss changes if they are clearly controversial, but saw no sign of that here and simply edited "boldly". DonFB (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I changed the lead before I noticed this discussion, I have simplified the statement to be more factual. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the 14 bis section

This article is about the Wright Flyer, and yet a substantial section is dedicated to a completely different flying machine. There seems to be no good reason for this, especially since the 14 Bis is only one of many "rivals" to the Flyer's throne. For example, Richard Pearse's flying machine of 1902-03 has more of a claim to beating the Flyer than the 14 Bis.

In short, I propose that the 14 Bis section be deleted and replaced with a much shorter section naming some other flying machines of the period without getting into too much debate about who was first. Please add your opinions below.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. However, whenever specific names of other aircraft are included, people usually add more detail and more names, and the text re-grows to unruly size. So I also suggest that instead of a separate shorter section mentioning specific names of other early aircraft, a sentence be included in an existing section, or even in the introduction, to say simply that other claims exist for 'first airplane', and make a link in that sentence to the Wikipedia First flying machine article. DonFB (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
yes, I didn't see your proposal up top here and left a similar effort at the bottom. Move it!, yes. It would go fine in the first flying machines section. The article is about the Wright Flyer not the 14bis or whether it flew properly(it didnt !). I don't know what it is with this Santos crowd continuing this nonsense.Koplimek (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The 14-Bis section was copied and pasted into this article from its own article. I would not recommend adding the section to the First flying machine article, which is supposed to be only a list, without pro and con "arguments" in narrative sections. If the 14-bis section is deleted from this article, it will still exist in its own article. DonFB (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually just moved it to the First Flying Machine entry after spending 1/2 re-typing before I read your response. I didn't know it was in the 14 bis article. Why wasn't it removed from the Wright flyer article earlier? well, it's done, the First Flying Machine article ends with the Santos flights so I thought this made a neat little addendum since the crux of the whole First Flying Machines article is speculation amongst the many different experimenters. Anyone want to remove the 14bis debate from First Flying Machines, be my guest.Koplimek (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wright Flyer vs. 14bis

this is a good section but it doesn't belong in an article on the Flyer. It certainly could be inserted into the article on first flying machines perhaps at the conclusion of the article. Im thinking of moving the section to there. It's better worthy of discussion and dialogue at first flying machines than being the conjecture that it is in an article on the Wright Flyer.Koplimek (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted this section from the Wright Flyer entry. It is totally and irrevocably out of place here in the entry about the Wright Flyer. I re-instituted the whole article word-for-word in the First Flying Machines article, though it might not belong there either. But for those who want or care to debate this issue go over to the First Flying Machines article. This makes for good talk, it's not going to change anything I feel as this argument was settled decades ago. Ok without much more adieu, there you have it , I made the change. 02:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Koplimek (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Stability

I took out a paragraph from the lead section about the aircraft's difficult handling characteristics, as there was no such discussion in the article body, and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, per WP:LEAD. However, I think the article could be expanded with discussion of handling and stability. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The 2003 reproduction of 1903 Wright Brothers' plane has never replicated the claimed flight from 1903

There is no evidence, no filmed images, no witness, no credible document on the internet, no documentary on Discovery Channel, nothing to certify that the Flyer reproduction has ever performed a successful test flight, more precisely a flight able to replicate the original Dec. 17 1903 flights.

This text should be removed: "Although the aircraft had previously made several successful test flights" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.129.146 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Artifact image referencing STS-51-L

The artifacts shown in the picture could not have flown on STS-51-L. On that flight the Challenger Shuttle was destroyed on liftoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X3phillips (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jane's All the World's Aircraft

Jane's All the World's Aircraft, which I think is safe to say is a fairly authoritative publication, has stated that it no longer considers the Wright Flyer the world's first powered aircraft link, instead giving the Whitehead No. 21 that honour. I know this discussion comes up frequently, but given the evidence, can the introduction be changed to something like "believed to be the first" or "amongst the first"? BabyNuke (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph states that "The Wright Flyer (often retrospectively referred to as Flyer I or 1903 Flyer) was the first successful powered aircraft, designed and built by the Wright brothers". I think that sentence is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean that the Wright Flyer was the first successful powered aircraft in the world (which isn't true), or does it mean it was the first one designed and built by the Wright brothers? FillsHerTease (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The comma after "first successful powered aircraft" answers your second question. You already answered your first question but your answer of "wrong" is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No I don't think the comma does answer my second question. I think people could read it both ways - regardless of the correct grammatical meaning - and that make it ambiguous. It could easily be re-worded so that the meaning can only be taken one way and surely that is preferable? As to my first question, no I am not wrong. The Wright Flyer was not the first successful powered aircraft. If you go to the Wiki article for 'Aircraft' you will see that the definition includes lighter than air as a method of lift. If you then follow the links to the History of Aviation, you will see that powered lighter than air aircraft were first: "The first powered, controlled, sustained lighter-than-air flight is believed to have taken place in 1852 when Henri Giffard flew 15 miles (24 km) in France, with a steam engine driven craft". The first Zeppelin flew in 1900. The Wright Flyer was, as specified correctly in the second paragraph, "...the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." The first sentence needs to be changed. I think it is important because many people think the Wright Brothers were the first people to fly and the first sentence reinforces that erroneous belief. I'm not trying to take anything away from their magnificent achievement or claim that some other obscure person actually flew a plane before them. I am simply trying to ensure the article is precise and correct.FillsHerTease (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I added "heavier-than-air" to the first sentence to meet your quite reasonable request. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplified initial statement

To convey the most useful information, this article can be written to make it perfectly clear as to why the Wright Flyer was a landmark achievement. In order to do this, it helps to strip away all of the techno-jargon and give the public a simple and straightforward opening sentence. The article now says this:

"The Wright Flyer (...) was the world's first modern airplane."

That's it. No gobbledygook about heavier-vs-lighter than air, 3-axis control, piloted, powered, etc. All of that, which is technically accurate, is encapsulated in "modern airplane". THIS is what's important. This is what people care about. And the lede can be satisfying to all because the elaborate descriptions have already been stated at the end. No need to clutter up the intro statement. Plain English works just fine.

And even more important, this plain English statement is accurate. The previous edit was not. Rubber-band powered planes were "successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft". And Sam Langley did a much larger "successful heavier-than-air powered aircraft" in 1896 (see photo here).

If you click through the new link to the airplane article, you'll find this:

"They [the Wright Bros] built on the works of Sir George Cayley dating from 1799, when he set forth the concept of the modern airplane..."

So the first statement in this article now fits perfectly well with that article.--Lexi sioz (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your change is good, useful to the unsophisticated reader. It's certainly true that the Wrights flew the first airplane that could carry a man, take off on its own power, fly pretty well in the air with suitable maneuverability, fly a complete circuit and land on the same patch from which it took off. Those are necessary characteristics of a useful airplane, one that is not a toy or an impractical experiment. However, its shape is still not modern, because its rudders are in the front. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the change to "modern airplane" was intended to indicate that the Wright aircraft was successful and practical. But "modern" in this context seems strange. It gives the misleading impression that there was some previous generation of winged machines which were flying and could be described by the word "airplane" and were superseded by the "modern" Wright design. The Wright airplane was "modern" in the sense that its fundamental control system became the basis for all airplanes that followed, not simply because it was superior to earlier machines, which were essentially non-flying. As has been noted by historians, the 1903 Flyer was not really "practical," so I am not suggesting it be described that way. In this historical context, I think the phrase "first successful airplane" is a better description than "first modern airplane," because it does not incorrectly imply that a dividing line existed in 1903 between flying non-modern airplanes and the flying "modern" Wright airplane. DonFB (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the original sentence per the previous discussion. "Heavier-than-air powered aircraft" is significant, because it was the first such aircraft, not just airplane, though obviously it was such too. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
BilCat, can you please explain why you reverted this change? ("per the previous discussion" isn’t clear…) As Lexi sioz wrote, the point was to make a clear-language statement in the lead. It is commonly understood that "airplane" is a heavier-than-air powered controlled aircraft, and that "successful airplane" describes one that permits fully-controlled flight. The precise details of the significance of the Flyer are made already in the article body. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

4th flight pic

Gray is unquestionably a reliable source, but after all this time--and having looked at this pic many times--I now wonder at his conclusion when considering the recently raised doubts. The black blobs don't seem to correspond to the engine and prone pilot, and the left propeller can clearly be seen as if stopped, unlike the image of the first takeoff, in which both props are blurred. As editors, however, it's not up to us to pass judgement on the accuracy of a particular statement made by a reliable source. The statement is quite interesting and worthy of mention, but I'm open to putting it in a note instead of the text. DonFB (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I additionally realized later that nobody else is in the picture except for the three figures. If it was in-flight wouldn't there be at least one person (Orville) running after the plane? I suppose Orville (and possible other(s)) could have dashed backwards out of the camera frame, but that seems unlikely.
We're not obliged to copy down everything an otherwise reliable source says. If we think an author was drinking the day he made some dubious conclusion, we're perfectly allowed to ignore it as unreliable and even as unnotable. I say "unnotable" because any otherwise reliable author can have a bad day, and that's not on-topic for the article. If there were additional reliable authors that supported him in that conclusion, then maybe it would be notable to mention in a note or something.
I undid the summary reversion because it was based on nothing more than a subjective "better", and it said nothing to address the edit summaries giving reasons for each edit.
96.237.114.137 (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Identification of 4th flight photo

The existing footnotes to reliable sources explicitly identify the photo as the fourth flight of Dec 17, 1903. The first ref, directly to the Library of Congress page containing the photo, is unequivocal. The photo has been well-known to historians for decades, and no reliable source questions its identification. It is emphatically not from 1908 in France, or any other time and place other than North Carolina on the stated date. I invite comment from editor ‎Schily, who challenges the identification, so we may restore the photo's unquestioned identificaton without further reversions. DonFB (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you cannot. Historicans have doubt about this photo because it shows 3 dark spots that cannot be caused by the Wright Flyer from 1903, so the photo is not worth anything as long as you cannot explain the three dark spots in the middle of the plane. Note that the only reliable photo from the Wright brothers flights from December 17, 1903 is the photo from the first 36m flight. Also note that Karl Jatho did already fly 18m on August 18, 1903 and 60m in November 1903 and that Gustav Weißkopf did fly 800m to 2.4km with several tests on August 14, 1901 already. I however have no problems if the subtitle for this photo explains why there is doubt on it's authenticity for December, 17 1903. Schily (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Poppycock. The photo is firmly established as 1903. Take your activism somewhere else. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources don't support your challenge to the photo. DonFB (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to see that your activism is not open to arguments from flight experts and historians that rate it as highly doubtful. As long as there is no explanation for the three black spots the photo cannot be seen as reliable. If you can explain the three black spots, things may be different... Schily (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand you have your own interpretation of this historical photo. Reliable sources cited in the caption unequivocally identify it. You have given no specific sources, reliable or otherwise, to support your action. If your demand for further "explanation" were followed, you could dictate every word in Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The reliability cannot be verified unless the sources would be based on non-fakeable facts. It would be e.g. a reliable photo it it was printed in a newspaper from 1903. Schily (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You have brought nothing reliably sourced to this discussion – no sources at all, in fact. You don't have any leverage here. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're making up Wikipedia rules as you go along. You don't really get to decide all by yourself what's fake and what's not. You even stated that the first flight photo is reliable, but it was also not published in a newspaper in 1903. Thousands, maybe millions, of photos of famous things and people have been taken, but not published at the time. They're not all fake. Learn about Wikipedia rules for reliable sources at WP:RS. DonFB (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As long as you are making your own rules for reliability, we will be in a conflict. How about just following the rules used by historians? The photo in question is definitely not reliable using the usual rules, as it was not published in time and as it shows something that does not look like the original Wright flyer. Note that e.g. the original photo from the Weißkopf flight (the one, the newspaper lithography was made from) disappeared around 1906, which is before the photo in question first appeared. BTW: The first photo definitely shows the original Wright flyer and it has been analyzed by aviation experts already, from the height of the plane and the position of the rudder, this is definitely from a flight of around 30m. Schily (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
We do have are own rules on reliability and it is not our place to investigate and do original research, if the image comes from a reliable source then we take the information provided with it as reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
So you believe that you get real money when you receive two banknotes with the same serial numbers as long as you receive them from a "reliable person"? This is not how science works... Schily (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You continue to rely on your own analysis rather than the published analysis of historians. You have no footing. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You continue to use strange own reliability rules instead of using the reliability rules used by historians. Schily (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat this as you dont appear to have understood, this is an encyclopedia not a website for historians or researchers all we do is use what reliable sources report. Nothing strange about the rules here, I am sure historians have blogs and discussion boards for this sort of thing but this is not that place. So I think as this is going nowhere we can end this discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wright Flyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"American Heritage" reference updated to working URL; archive links all ok. DonFB (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Crude" 12 horsepower engine

Was it crude by the standards of the day? 12 hp is pretty strong for 1903. Was it heavy? Not fuel efficient? What makes it crude?141.156.187.235 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The source clearly says it was "a bit crude, even by the standards of the day." The description mentions the crudeness of the ignition, the cooling and fuel flow. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Colorized photo

Seconds into the first airplane flight, near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina; December 17, 1903. (colorized)

THIS edit was the prompt removal of the colorized photo presented in the infobox. This 1903 event happened in color. It was experienced and witnessed in color. The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a technology limitation which existed at that time. Well that limitation has now been removed.

The rationale presented for the revert was this:

"A link to colorized version for the curious would be ok, but misrepresentation in the article not ok for most famous aviation photograph."

That would be a sound argument for an article which placed its focus on the photography aspect instead of the event itself. The John T. Daniels entry is one such article. This one about the Wright Flyer is not a photography article. If life happened in black&white, then we could say that color is a misrepresentation. But knowing that nothing in real life is seen by human eyes in black&white, then it becomes clear that the original unrestored photo is the "misrepresentation". More accurately, it under-represents what actually happened. It is for this reason that the better version to present in the infobox is the colorized photo. I would suggest that...

"It is those who are more interested in the history of photography who can do the one extra click to find the black&white version."

This exact same argument stands for the parallel revert which happened HERE by the same editor, DonFB. I recommend that all discussion of this issue be consolidated here, as I see it to be the same argument, with more harm than benefit happening by splitting the discussion across these two articles. In both places, the colorized photo has been re-added to the bottom of the articles. This was done as an interim measure. The end goal is clear consensus being established. --Wright Stuf (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A very nice work of art, the placement near the end of the page or maybe in the gallery, identified in the caption as colorized, seems fine. Should definitely not be the lead image in the infobox though, as it is essentially a faked image (i.e. the color of the sky, why is it such a light blue?). The original black and white photo is the iconic visual descriptor of the event. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared, whereas colorization imparts an appearance which the photograph never had, misrepresenting it. In effect, colorizing is an editorialization, contrary to neutrality policy. You said: "The main reason for presenting the info here in black&white is because of a technology limitation". No, the reason for presenting it in black&white is because that's a correct representation of its actual appearance as a world-famous artifact. I believe it's inappropriate for the encyclopedia to manipulate it or any historical image in an attempt to recreate what an editor believes real life looked like. The encyclopedia is obligated to present historical information and imagery without distortion or editorializing. DonFB (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out. By contrast, the black & white photo or lightly edited versions of it faithfully represent the original document. This original photo is part of the history of this airplane. The fact that the brothers had someone there to take it, that the flights were meticulously recorded etc. is an integral part of the story and the success. For those who want/need better visualization of the airplane, there is a 3D model available. I think the colorized version, in spite of Wright Stuf’s hard work producing it and good faith addition, does not really belong to the article at all. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to all three of you:

Thanks, Randy. I'm glad you like it. Ariadacapo, I'm glad to know that you too appreciate the effort. This was my first attempt at photo-real colorization. (Or rather, my second attempt. Back on December 16 & 17 of 2018, right on the heels of completing the b&w restoration project, I tried to dive straight into this colorization project. It failed miserably. I think that was because I was burned out at that moment, and did not have the necessary patience reserves. Yesterday's effort was a full success, but admittedly short of perfect.

The question at hand here is whether addition to these articles as factual is appropriate and helpful, or damaging.

Sky lightness has been called into question. One thing we can be certain of is that the sky was not grayscale. So even if the hue is off, it is certainly closer than the black&white image. But you specifically asked about the lightness of the sky. Here we have proof of exactly how light or dark the sky was, because this is what black&white photography captures best: brightness. Cognizant of the historical importance of the photo, I made the effort to not manipulate brightness values, concentrating on hue. This way, you can take this colorized photo, do a quick single step desaturization, and return to the black&white image with essentially no alteration. Brightness, including the lightness of the sky, is preserved.

DonFB: "Restoration serves encyclopedic accuracy by showing the photograph as it originally appeared..."

I am the one who did the 2018 b&w restoration. I expect you're aware that an entire corner was broken off. To fill this in, I had to make the editorial choice of what to put there. Every single dab of the "cloning tool" is an editorial choice, deciding where to repeat pixels in order to remove damage. I made countless hundreds, probably over a thousand such fabrication edits which deviate from what has been historically preserved.

Knowing that you are accepting of editorial choices within the realm of black&white restoration, let's revisit your objection to editorialization in the conversion to color:
If this process is done in a freewheeling manner, then I would READILY AGREE WITH YOU. "Was his shirt blue or brown? I am going to take a random guess."

The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is factual when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS. It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is historically accurate. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here.

There is not much room for freewheeling when it comes to how tan sand is, how blue the sky is, how brown wood is, how dark clothing is. And when it comes to the flyer itself, we have the rebuilt aircraft in living color, along with several exacting replicas which enable us to verify the correct colors. This was done with the level of care that meets encyclopedic standards of presenting factual info. If it did not, then I would not have presented it as such.

A similar principle holds when converting a 2-D source image to '3-D" stereographic. Guesses need to be made. But these are highly educated guesses which are based in fact. We have a solid understanding of how to keep the manufactured output true to reality. We KNOW what this moment in time looked like to John T. Daniels. And we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that what he saw was a lot closer to what I posted than it did to the historic b&w photo. Once again, this is an article focused on this event. It is not an article about historically significant photos. --Wright Stuf (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


I should also have replied to this:

Ariadacapo: "Colorizing the photo involves many subjective decisions and the end result will vary very noticeably according to who carried it out."

YES. I readily agree. The healthy approach, once someone offers an alternative colorization, is to then debate which one is more accurate. NOT "...well then, let's throw them all away." The proverbial colorized baby/bathwater adage.

If you've done any photo post-processing, including perfectly linear edits from which the original can be recovered, then you know that 10 people will turn in 10 different images. This goes for EVERY SINGLE PHOTO PRESENTED HERE ON WIKIPEDIA. Cropping is one such huge decision that 100 editors can result in 100 different output. Many times, these results are radically different.

The proper way to deal with these variations and inconsistencies is to adequately document what was done. NOT "Well, these aren't the same so let's throw them all away." Wikicommons makes it a breeze to track how a photo has been cropped or color balanced by various editors. It is likewise very easy to keep colorization documentation transparent. Click on the example here, and you can see that this was done. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


What I have been advocating here is perfectly in line with how Wikipedia on the whole works.
If the attitude was "Well, this isn't a perfect article, so let's trash it and never show it to anyone", then Wikipedia would never have gone anywhere. But it is a HUGE SUCCESS not because it achieves perfection at any moment in time. Rather, the success is in this PROCESS which facilitates continuous improvement.

If John T. Daniels had taken a color photo, NO ONE here would be arguing for the deletion of that to replace it with black&white. The crux of these objections have more to do with the accuracy of the colorization process. Ironically, the position you three have taken here amounts to:

"Let's block the process of continual improvement. The old way is the better way."

So the bigger question to ask is why are you here on Wikipedia at all. With this attitude you're championing, I would expect that your encyclopedia of choice would be World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. Dealing with paper cuts as an acceptable risk. --Wright Stuf (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Attack the ball, not the player. Treating other editors with respect is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The historical accuracy of the event includes the iconic photograph, which you also provided in an alerted by less-changed form. This is the image that the world saw which introduced humans to the concept that their species was now skybound. That is the value of leading off the article with the black and white - it has resonated in the collective memory for almost 120 years. I approve of using your color version on the page, it is worthy of encyclopedic exhibition. Just not as the infobox introductory image (although I can see your point and partially agree that it would be useful, just not a guarantee of an totally accurate portrayal). World Book still exists? I know Britannica is online and awash with ads. Wikipedia is where the encyclopedia game is nowadays, and your interest in improving it with good images is commendable. I'm glad to see the colored version, like it a lot, but it's not the iconic and historical photo (and hard to believe that the sky was so pale blue in 1903, especially above the ocean). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry if I came across as attacking anyone. I was actually hoping you all might get a chuckle out of the papercut quip. And I thought that the notion of reverting to old school book versions of encyclopedias would be obviously facetious. What I was trying to do with that last post was zoom out to the bigger picture. MUCH larger than just these two articles / one photo being discussed. My point was that what is at issue here is actually a philosophical question, impacting Wikipedia across the board. And since photo colorization has been around a lot longer than Wikipedia, we could expect that our topic at hand was settled policy from well over a decade ago.
I just now looked it up, and apparently World Book DOES still exist. And maybe pigs have begun to fly as well. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I even snuck a racism joke in there. I probably should apologize for that too. There is nothing funny about colorized babies. Black or white. Pick a lane and stay there. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Struck my comment, I wasn't taking you in good faith. Humor sometimes doesn't come across when written, now that I know it was written in good faith the papercut mention is pretty good. And I looked up World Book too, seems to be still running and put up a new edition in 2019! Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Wright Stuf, I've added your image to the Hand-colouring of photographs and Photograph manipulation pages with hopefully an adequate caption. They look good, and are relevant to the topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow, THANK YOU! --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wright Stuf: You said: The position I am presenting here is that editorialization during the colorization process is factual when we have sufficient knowledge of what the original colors were. We know that sand is tan, wood is brown, the sky is blue, their suits and shoes and hats were very dark. These are all HARD FACTS. It is possible to do editorialization with such care that the output is historically accurate. And I submit to all three of you that this is what has been accomplished here. These are highly presumptuous comments. "Historically accurate"--according to what reliable source? "Tan", "brown" and "blue" are the most generic of descriptions of sand, wood and sky, but are no substitute for the undetermined reality of a given scene. You don't know if the sand was FFDAB9 or EEE8AA or FFE4B5 or FFDEAD, or if the sky was ADD8E6 or 1E90FF or B0C4DE or 87CEEB or whether it even was clear, blue...or overcast. But these are mere details. The overarching point I'm making is that it's not appropriate for an editor to arrogate to themself the role of proclaiming a "historically accurate" depiction of anything, especially not by radical revision of a world-famous image. You may think it is accurate. I think it is mere imagineering. You have argued that the articles are not about the "history of photography". My response: that's a non-sequitur. The purpose of the articles is to present accurate encyclopedic knowledge from reliable sources, including knowledge represented by photographs in their original form, or, at least, not radically manipulated to create a vision that springs from an editor's assumptions. In keeping with my original suggestion that a link would be ok, I won't object to image placement in secondary positions like See Also or a Gallery, but I could never support complete exclusion of the iconic b&w photo from either article, nor its placement anywhere other than in leading or context-appropriate positions. DonFB (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is steered completely off-track. This is a search for consensus about replacing/including one image. We don’t want walls of text, nor lecturing of other editors about what Wikipedia is about. Wright Stuf, please focus. Thanks. --Ariadacapo (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I need to apologize yet again. For wasting everyone's time here with my "wall of text". I had expressed my expectation that this must have been an issue resolved long ago. I just now found this to be true. Please see new subsection below. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Colorization of historical photos - Consensus was established way back in 2014

As it turns out, we have an exact parallel to the issue being discussed here:

  - Use of a colorized historical photo in the infobox,
    -- Ensuring that it is properly labeled as such,
  - Keeping the black & white historical version in the article which is focused on photography.

Here are the articles from where our issue here was discussed and settled back in 2014:

  - Article focused on event/person using colorized historical photo in the infobox: Ilia Chavchavadze.
  - Article focused on photography/photographer keeping the historical black & white version: Alexander Roinashvili (photographer).

This is exactly parallel to our case here with the Wright Flyer article focused on the event, and the John T. Daniels article focused on photography.
Had I found this earlier, I would not have wasted anyone's time (my own being most important to me). This matter was closed more than six years before I opened it. Based on this long established and extremely stable consensus which has endured throughout that entire period of well over 2,000 days, our article here has now been fixed. --Wright Stuf (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please link the consensus, I'm not seeing it. There is a two person discussion on the Chavchavadze talk page, one says it's a fake photo, the other disagrees and that's how it ends, with the photo being used. "Extremely stable" consensus is incorrect if this is what you are pointing to, as this very discussion above overturns that non-established consensus. Maybe a full RfC is needed, or maybe I'm missing the consensus you're talking about, but as of now the colored photo, no matter how interesting and reimaginingable informative, should not be used in the infobox per this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
In that article, there are a minimum of 4 editors who directly weighed in on the topic: Paul Barlow (edit here), Centpacrr (edit here), Damianmx (edit here) and Jaqeli (edit here).
On top of this, there is tacit agreement from all other editors who made changes to this article without voicing objection to its most prominent image, which is clearly labeled as colorized.
And on top of those countless dozens of editors who expressed their consent by way of silence, there are the untold THOUSANDS of readers who saw this image, each one of them with the ability to remove it, or voice objection to it. So consensus in this case arguably involved a rough estimate of maybe five figures worth of people.
I can also provide links to places outside of this article where the colorization issue has been thoroughly discussed. But those threads do not relate near exactly as this one Ilia Chavchavadze case does, so I would be risking branching too far off-track for some here, starting into another wall of text. (Ariadacapo, I need to thank you in particular for providing me with the motivation to do the deep search that was necessary to find this example. I knew from the start here that established precedent would be the most definitive way to resolve this issue, but I was too lazy to do the needle-in-haystack hunt.) But those other lengthy discussions I was able to find were quite fascinating... because those folks presented the exact same type of arguments we have been rehashing here. I'd be glad to share for anyone who wouldn't see this as a waste of space.
Now those who may not like what has been established here on Wikipedia, I'd like to suggest that the new fix for the Wright Flyer article is actually the best of both worlds. No one even need *click* anymore to view the historical b&w photo. It's now been set up where a reader need only *scroll over* the photog's name and the b&w image pops up, without even leaving the article. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Here I was being lazy again, saying "maybe five figures worth of people". The precise number is 100,000+ Page Views. (page stats: ~51 ave views/day) (period spanning 2337 days)
And the precise number throughout that period were ~140 Total Edits, incl ~27 minor edits. (Hard stats here). --Wright Stuf (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange. The consensus in this present discussion, so far, is to keep the historical and iconic black and white image. Besides, the image you're pointing to as the overriding consensus is not historically important in terms of being an internationally known multi-generational iconic image. Good work in finding it though, you're very persistent and that's an admirable trait in a Wikipedian (makes the other editors have to come up with the best arguments). You picked an iconic photo to make this point, and that, I agree, is the way to go to give the concept air and get it out in the open. Maybe an RfC is the way to play this, but I think it would end up favoring the iconic b&w over the nice but questionable "maybe true colored" rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how a decision reached at the biography of Ilia Chavchavadze has foundational relevance to this article about the first successful airplane. The monochrome photo is historic, while any new colorized version is not. If someone's colorized version is discussed widely in the media, then we could conceivably include it. But that isn't happening. The policy I'm leaning on is WP:WEIGHT in which minor issues that are peripheral to the topic are shed due to their lack of central importance. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to both Randy & Binksternet:

I readily agree that the Wright Flyer photo carries orders of magnitude greater historical importance than some obscure guy who did some things. December 17, 1903, was a SINGULAR MOMENT in human history. Down to the split second, this photo has captured the singularity: The very start of humanity's first airplane flight. Nevertheless, PRECEDENT has been established. And precedent operates on PRINCIPLE. The issue is not big vs small. It is wright vs wrong. 'Right', in this case, meaning being in accord with established Wikipedia principles. More succinctly, Being 'right' scales.

That is to say, what is 'good' for the tiny case must also be good for our ginormous case.

I will recommend 2 strategies for anyone wishing to overturn this established precedent:

- Find a counterexample which fits the parallel outlined above. If you succeed in finding a case where consensus went the other direction, rejecting the colorization, then we will NO LONGER BE IN A STABLE STATE here. It will be conflicting consensus which will need to be resolved.
- Another approach would be for you all to go to that Talk page where six+ years of consensus has gotten entrenched... and work there to get this precedent re-evaluated.

Now there is a 3rd Option which would be ideal: Create clear WP. But I have no idea how Wikipedia Policy comes into being. Rub Jimmy's head or something.

Randy: "Of the four editors you said weighed in, two removed the digitally colored image and two replaced it. No consensus exists in that exchange."

Actually, it does establish consensus. For the moment, let's ignore the 10s of thousands who decided to tacitly agree with no one outside of these two editors objecting. Those two assented to having their edits reverted. They did this by not persisting against the reverts. SILENCE CONSTITUTES AN ABSTENTION against voting down the change. And this very act of not acting... or rather, giving up their objection is what created the consensus. Centpacrr presented an extremely strong argument for why the proper action was to keep the colorized version, and to this day NO ONE has replied there to refute those excellent points.

Consensus on this issue was asserted on 15 September 2014 at 22:04. Every single edit action since that moment has served to quicken and solidify CONSENSUS. There was one sole exception: More than a full year later, at 22:30 on 25 December 2015, Damianmx did a revert to what by that point in time had become a very stable situation. NO rationale was presented. Damianmx was promptly reverted. And THAT WAS THE END OF THAT. It is now more than 5 years later. Countless 10s of THOUSANDS of people have weighed in on the matter... by not weighing in.

Centpacrr might as well have closed off his Talk post with, "Speak now, or forever hold you peace." As you all know, I happen to see the established consensus to fit with the basic principles which guide us here as Wikipedia editors. And this brings us to the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT rebuttal. This is a classic example of WP being misapplied. A policy is delineated for one set of circumstances... than an editor attempts an impressive contortionist backbend in an effort to get words to fit into a situation it never applied to. The overarching Policy is NPOV. Colorization is not a Neutrality issue.

But let's say that we are Olympic caliber rhythmic gymnasts, and we wish to attempt the backbend anyway... Let's go for it. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from WP:NPOV:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Well we KNOW perfectly well what John T. Daniels' POV was at this instant. It was asserted early on here that he watched this moment in Living Color. The focus of this article is on the event. So our bent over version of WP:NPOV actually DEMANDS that the color image be presented. To argue otherwise would require evidence that he was totally colorblind. But then the person behind him witnessed this in full color. So that angle fails too.

Now let's scroll down to UNDUE. Well here is a quote from the first sentence from that section:

"...each article ... represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint..."

Here too, yet again, we have Zero Evidence that anyone witnessed this historic event in monochrome. Time to call the ambulance because our heroic gymnasts have broken their backs. We can now clearly see that the b&w infobox is the version in violation of bent WP:UNDUE. Absolutely no one, as far as known reliable sources tell us, witnessed this event in monochrome.

Let's close here with a point I expect WE CAN ALL AGREE ON: The fundamental underlying issue is Lack of Specific Policy Guidance. Consensus needed to be dredged from an obscure corner of the Project. Sufficient. But not ideal. So I once again point to Option 3 above, for everyone wishing to accomplish a reversal of long-established Consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

One more comment on the earlier Policy quote: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias..." I readily agreed early on that the colorization process includes INHERENT BIAS. But this goes back to the baby/bathwater point. Comparing which version has less bias from how the event was witnessed, the b&w is like trying to enter a turtle in the Indy 500. Black&white is but a speedbump in the road of progress. The tried & true process which makes Wikipedia great. We are looping around the Brickyard in a cycle of continuous improvement, on the whole. The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500. And b&w photos likewise rise to the top in articles which focus on photography. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."

I expect everyone here is perfectly clear that the words in quotes above do not fly here on Wikipedia. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Give it up. Drop the stick. You don't have anything close to a local consensus here at this article. Some sympathetic thoughts have been directed your way, and some very stiff opposition. So the result is: no colorized photo. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"The turtle gets to the Winner's Circle in the Turtle 500." That's pretty cool, did you make that up? Can't find in on the net. Of course there is no consensus here to include the colorization as the lead image, although it too is pretty cool. Are you saying WP:IGNOREALLRULES should apply? I'm a fan of that one as well, but in this case the historian in me (he likes pancakes) sides with the established iconic black and white image. I may owe an apology though, just watched a film set near and on the ocean, and the sky was light blue like your image. So you say the color values in the coloring process read it out as light blue? Interesting. You've done some great work on Wikipedia, and it's obvious how much you believe in the outstandingness of the colorized image. I like how you fight until the last bell rings. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wright Stuf, in your first response to my reversions to the black&white historic photograph, you ended by writing: "The end goal is clear consensus being established." That has happened. One editor favors the colorized image to be leading or exclusive: Wright Stuf. Four do not: RandyKryn, Ariadacapo, Binksternet, and DonFB. You have misunderstood consensus on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia policy on consensus refers throughout to discussion by editors. The word "reader/s" does not appear on the page. Consensus on the content of Wikipedia articles is achieved by editors, not readers. Furthermore, no rule directs that consensus in one article must transfer, migrate or automatically apply to any other article. Consensus is achieved on each article, separately. Only the consensus that created or revised a Policy or Guideline applies to all articles. I think you may need more experience on Wikipedia to gain a better understanding of its functioning. DonFB (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Replying to all three...
I have been editing Wikipedia for an extremely long time. I have done multiple visits to Wikipedia Headquarters, including the obligatory photo standing next to the Puzzle Ball.
DonFB: "Consensus on the content of Wikipedia articles is achieved by editors, not readers."
My statement was perfectly clear that Consensus over there was established by 4 editors.
Countless dozens of other editors supported it. Then I went further to explain that 5-figures worth of potential editors likewise provided tacit support. Through their choice of not editing. Feel free to drop this last category if you don't care to consider potential editors. This leaves you in the rough neighborhood of ~100ish editors who did consent to the colorized infobox. And the total of ACTIVE EDITORS who support the consensus just today JUMPED FROM 4 UP TO 9 now. Because while the 5 of us have been editing this Talk page, NONE of us have switched that infobox back to b&w. All 5 of us here have cast our votes by way of inaction.
9 editors. Plus ~100 other editors. Ignore this if you want. But it is a HARD FACT. Consensus on our issue is established fact. 6+ years now.
DonFB: "Consensus is achieved on each article, separately."
Now you are making stuff up. I will be tickled pink if you can support that statement.
And I will be the first to admit that I MADE UP this concept of consensus established in one article carries over to an article debating the same essential situation. The huge difference is that I supported my position with logic. I didn't bother with digging through WP on this because common sense prevails here. "Do we need to reinvent the wheel every time we need to get rolling?" Obviously not.
Randy, I'm not here to fight. But then again, I won't refuse to engage, like a wussified Maverick post-flat spin.
I actually was ready to concede to Viper's flight of 4 editors as being no match. "B&w infobox it is." That's where I was at. But then I watched that 4-ship formation (you can be the flight leader) dive straight below the consensus hard deck. The extremely unusual case where 1-vs-4 results with the solo pilot flying off into the sunset, while the commanding officer of the four opposed editors is in the awkward position of writing letters of condolences to the next of kin for the four.
The Hard Deck is an inviolable rule. Hence the "Hard". Consensus on Wikipedia is itself a rigid guideline. But as you point out, we happen to be equipped with the IAR Trump Card. (Post-Jan6, that card needs rebranding.) Let's call it the IAR Joker's Wild. Except I see you three to have pulled out the Joker here. Absolutely nothing I posted before was done with any thought to IAR. It is a card we all have, yes. But not one to be played lightly.
The proper use of IAR is this...
When all other Policy fails, and you have justification to take an action which results in improvement to an article, THEN you have license to IAR. It is not to be used lightly without the sound justification for an out of the box exception.
Here, with this one photo, we are squarely inside the box. Colorization is an issue which impacts hundreds, if not thousands of Wikipedia images. The problem is that the walls of this particular box are invisible. No policy on colorization has yet been published. Not that I can find, at least. So we must do our best gauging of the walls by using other methods. And I was actually SHOCKED to find Consensus established in a case which perfectly matches ours.
Bottom line: The totality of policies we have to go by show that you three are the ones below the Hard Deck here. I don't know where the fourth wingman is right now. Consensus is not... "Let's do a count of hands: Ok, 4 here, 1 there." Consensus is not democratic rule. Consensus has more to do with PRINCIPLE. Which answer conforms best to policies that guide us. Centpaccr presented a SOLID case for colorization. We have a case here which fits neatly within the box they built over there.
What you four amount to is, "Let's reinvent the wheel." But we were handed a wheel which works quite well.
It is absolutely clear that the proper course of action is for all 5 of us to regroup. ABOVE the Hard Deck. This means revert the Infobox back to color, and conform to long-established Consensus. Any notion of "local consensus" grates against the principle of Broad Consensus. Which all of us follow in alike circumstances. Like it or not, Ilia IS that parallel case.
And yes, I originated the Turtle 500 thing. I've probably taken all these analogies way too far. I sure hope you all like Top Gun. I was thinking that was a safe one, seeing how it is an aviation page which brought us all together. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I am going to take a step back for a while to let this breathe. I am absolutely clear on what the next step here needs to be. Explicitly stated above. I hope that when I return, I find that the dough has risen. (First turtles, now baking. Yikes.) Goodbye for the time being. I have built another wall big enough to satisfy DT. That's definitely reason to take a breather. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

TL, DR

Wow, Wikipedia:Wall of text! A colorized picture always scream "fake". It should be avoided. This is an encyclopedia, not a fantasy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair summary, IMHO.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

PoV-pushing

Wright Stuf (talk · contribs) is very blatantly pushing their personal point of view (PoV) on Wikipedia, having first started messing with this image in 2018 shortly after creating their account. We see here classic PoV-pushing behaviour in responding to criticism not by WP:LISTENing but by wp:WIKILAWYERING and piling up WP:WALLS of text. A very clear consensus of "No, thank you" has emerged in the above discussion. This needs to end now, before it becomes WP:DISRUPTIVE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Graphic Violence Warning

(Inserted- Your input is being requested here:
  DonFB, Ariadacapo, Binksternet, Marc Lacoste, GraemeLeggett, Steelpillow, RandomCanadian, Ahunt, BilCat and clarification from Randy Kryn. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I am going to ask everyone here for a momentary reset. Let's forget about the Wright Brothers...
Let's say that all of us here are interested in Thích Quảng Đức, the Vietnamese Buddhist monk who lit himself on fire. We are faced with making the editorial choice on which of these two images to present in that Wikipedia article:

https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4740894482/Monk-color-photo.jpeg

I am calling on every one of us here to vote. A simple one word answer is sufficient:
   - monochrome, or
   - color

I will vote last. --Wright Stuf (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, similar to the Wright flight, the colorized version (if it's colorized and not an original) gives more information but is not the historical iconic black and white photo which is also a Wikipedia feature image. Colorization may have its place, and on the other hand there is Ansel Adams. Iconic images align more with Ansel Adams (although he did play with the shading and other aspects to create his artistic photos), they have their own history and notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
So, monochrome. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Two different articles, with no correlation. Very different historic photos. I'm not participating in this sideshow. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TLDR

Hello, people, a massive discussion like this over a colourised or black and white picture seems entirely unecessary - its a goddamn picture, not a question of life and death. A massive WP:TROUT for everyone seems well deserved. If this much discussion can't solve such a petty detail, then it's time for a !vote or something else, cause clearly this is a waste of time. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Assume good faith, as this discussion has resulted in some good edits elsewhere, and to some editors it is not a petty detail. Massive trouts need plenty of water to swim in, and Wikipedia discussions like this are all wet. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:RandomCanadian here. This is very simple and clear issue and does not require massive walls of text. Also the massive walls of text are discouraging others from bothering to participate as they know that any posts will be meet with more massive walls of text that are not worth getting drawn into. We have been over this all before, colouring photos is simply WP:OR and doesn't go. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
On second look, it looks like User:Wright Stuf might be (inadvertantly, though can't be sure) engaging in WP:BLUDGEON: since this debate started, the talk page has doubled in size from just under 50 kB to just under 100 kB, and simple maths from their contribution history give at least half of that amount. I suggest they let others express themselves, or at least not feel compelled to offer a detailed rebuttal to every editor who opposes them. As for my opinion on the whole thing, it is usually the fact that the historic event is depicted with the usual black and white picture (plenty of things are depicted in black and white without that causing problem). In fact, if I may, colourblindness is a thing, and some people do experience life in not "full colour". I don't see why us non-colourblind people would suddenly complain about being restricted to a black and white picture, especially such a well known one. I've always found colourisations to be more interesting from the "computer gimmicks" point of view than the "restoring historical artefacts" one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a second look. :) BilCat (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, my persistence here has been founded on the principle of established Consensus. One which I am conforming to, and you are refusing to follow. In that light, if anyone is being bludgeoned here, it's me. I have expressed willingness to take an extended leave of absence from this entire discussion, and you come back to this section to say, "I suggest they let others express themselves". That is exactly what I announced. I was offering 10.5 months of you all choosing to go against Consensus, unopposed by me.
As for colorblindness, I had addressed that long ago here. Just scroll up a long ways. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental issue: LACK of Policy guidance

Ahunt: "We have been over this all before, colouring photos is simply WP:OR and doesn't go." [citation needed]

Perhaps you've been over it. But I haven't. And I've searched. The string colo (which covers colorization/colourization) does not appear one single time in WP:OR. Nor does colorization/colourization appear one single time in WP:Image use policy. This is the best I've been able to find...

WP:OR#Original images:
"It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion."

Everything I have been advocating here conforms with WP:NOR completely. That's NOR as published. Not NOR as imagined. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wright Stuf, I suggest then that you ask for a policy clarification at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. The consensus here is clearly against using the colorized image in the infobox, and leaning toward excluding it from the article altogether. There's also no interest in a poll at this time. Given that the colorization is your own work, you also have a clear bias towards using the image that could be considered a conflict of interest. I'd suggest backing off of this article and talk page for a while (probably a month or more), and pursue some other interests on or off Wikipedia. Please realize that discussions that drag on like this one has quickly become a time sink to most users, who have busy lives amd other interests besides Wikipedia. So please, give it a break, and allow things to simmer down here. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I will be perfectly happy to give this a rest for the remainder of 2021. I will commit to this if only 3 of you vote "monochrome" in the monk subsection above. Randy has already weighed in. If his vote was for monochrome, then my (in)action would require only two more of you. (I would also like you to clarify on exactly where you stand, Randy. One word.)
As for COI, the colorization artist who I am seeking your feedback on is Sanna Dullaway. I am not her. I have never met her. I wouldn't know what she looked like if I did.
As for simmering down, I myself have not detected any signs of boilover. We have been engaged here in respectful, well-reasoned argumentation. I see the merit of your side, and I went so far as to map out THREE proper paths forward for anyone who wishes to contest the Consensus which was established in 2014 over on the Ilya article.
ME request policy clarification? Consensus on this issue was settled a very long time ago. In favor of the edit I have been advocating. For the exact same rationale I was supporting before finding Centpaccr's solid rebuttal. Because of that established consensus, the onus is on all of you to seek any Policy guidance which might have a hope of reversing the longstanding Consensus. FURTHERMORE, if you read my previous post, then you know that my position conforms perfectly with WP:NOR. This ball is in your court. I await your votes. Feel free to LIE up there if you simply want to get me to shut up. But my remaining months of 2021 will be spent knowing that I left here with my integrity intact.
It is all of you who are persistently refusing to follow long established Consensus. As highlighted at the top of that subsection, such behavior simply does not fly on Wikipedia.
"I do not like the established consensus, therefore I will refuse to follow it."
This is simply not how Wikipedia operates. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I see no mention of a Sanna Dullaway on the image file page. From the file: "This image was restored by User:Wright Stuf in November, 2018 using GIMP, and then manually colorized on February 5, 2021, also using GIMP...John T. Daniels (restoration & colorization by Wright Stuf) If you're referring to a different image that you want added to the article, I missed that completely. If so, please make it clear what images you're discussing here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I am preparing to exit this discussion. All that is needed is 2 more votes for 'monochrome' in the monk subsection above. Sanna Dullaway is the artist who colorized that. Freakin PTSD inducing, I imagine. If I knew of any other image which could speak so powerfully, I would have used that one. --Wright Stuf (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sanna Dullaway colorized File:Wright_First_Flight_1903Dec17_(full_restore_115,_colorized).jpg? that's not in the file information. BilCat (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Scroll up to the Graphic Warning and you'll find the iconic photo of the burning monk, where the photog was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. I found Sanna's colorized version here:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4740894482/adding-color-to-the-most-iconic-photos-in-history
I'm obviously not communicating clearly. But I hope it's all clear now. --Wright Stuf (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Why would we want to add a picture of a burning monk to an article about the Wright Flyer? And how does that excuse you of a COI for promoting an image of the Flyer that you (apparently) colorized? BilCat (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I NOW finally understand what you were saying in your 21:27, 9 Feb comment above. COI is a curious argument to inject here. Every single change made to Wikipedia carries that same bias. The principle you are arguing for here is that:
"Every single edit done on Wikipedia should be REVERTED, because the user who posted the change is heavily biased toward their new words."
A most curious angle. But yes, I do admit that I'm heavily biased toward the color image I made. But you can also find here where I've expressed TOTAL OPENNESS to having that image immediately replaced the moment anyone comes forward with anything that gets closer to realism. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of a colorized image as the lead image in this article or any other article that is not about colorizing, photo retouching, special effects or closely related articles. It amounts to original research. Go to Google Images, and enter "sand" in the search box. There is wide color variation in sand. I have experimented with colorizing photos myself and enjoyed Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, a masterpiece of colorization. I am not opposed to colorization in the abstract. Even so, I am firmly in favor of using historic black and white photos as the lead images of encyclopedia articles when high quality color photos are not a available. I am also opposed to walls of text and the bludgeoning of discussions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Your comment here could be taken to indicate that you'd vote color for the monk image. Please post up there if you'd like to remove any doubt.
I interpret your position to be that you would Favor colorized here, or at least not oppose, if only we had a better, more realistic looking colorization effort. Please correct me if that's mistaken.
All that said, I readily agree that the colorized Flyer is FAR FROM PERFECT. I am disappointed with in in several key aspects. Wilbur's fleshtones are HORRID. All of the wood tones are off from being perfectly convincing. Etc, etc. This was my first photo colorization. I did it with freeware. There are countless thousands of people who can do a MUCH BETTER JOB. But the argument presented toward the top is that using my far from perfect colorization will PUT US ON THE PATH toward continual improvement (see "philosophical question" & "Turtle 500" above.) --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So, Wright Stuf, your color version now appears in both articles: Wright brothers & Wright Flyer, though not exclusively, nor in a leading position (but pretty darn close in WB). Are you dissatisfied with that outcome? Consensus against your opinion in this discussion is overwhelming. By your logic, that would mean the historic photo in the other article you referenced should now be changed back to b&w. But I'll repeat: consensus in one article does not dictate a decision in another. You can use consensus elsewhere to support your argument, but not to command a result. DonFB (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I make no commands of anyone here.
If the Ilya article was not a perfect parallel in its essence, then I would be the first to agree with you that consensus over there would not apply here. Except that the situation there is the same in all important ways but one. That image has no iconic historical status. And this is exactly why the monk was selected, to help fill this one gap.
DFB: "Are you dissatisfied with that outcome?"
I am THRILLED that the current edits include the colorized version. But I hope it is clear to everyone that the reason this didn't end long ago is because of PRINCIPLE. We either follow Consensus, or we don't. Your question is akin to asking a lottery winner if they're satisfied with the check they received. "So what if the IRS took 90%? You still pocket 10%!" NO. That's not only dissatisfying. If you read the tax code, you'll see that a robbery just occurred. --Wright Stuf (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, forget the monk. I am out of here. GOODBYE, and thank you all for this civil discussion.
Everyone here knows the direction Wikipedia Policy points us toward. I am exiting now with full faith in that process. In this principle. My parting comment, believe it or not...

"I Like Turtles." --Wright Stuf (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A possible solution to the above enclosed box

Since Wright Stuf, as a major participant in the discussion, seems adamant that it should be open, and it probably should be on the strength of that objection alone, then how about this: the discussion is opened in full, and then the page gets archived. Clears up the talk page while at the same time being good-faith fair. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As the person who originally hatted the conversation, I oppose unhatting it. Hatting a discussion is an excepted way of handling extremely long discussions, and all an interested user has to do to see it is to click "Show". (They'll. quickly figure out why it was hatted, and if they don't view it, it's actually saving the OP some unwitting embarrassment.) I'll note for the record that I did not close the discussion, which ostensibly prevents additions or changes from being made. When the OP is ready to continue the discussion, he is welcome to do so. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not opposed to Collapsing the vast majority of an extremely long discussion that most will have no interest in. I went along with what I saw to be a legitimate reason for doing so: Help make the section far more accessible by leaving only two tips of the iceberg.
An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted?
As for embarrassment...
I am not embarrassed by a single word I've posted. I see my position in that discussion to be extremely strong, perfectly in line with long established consensus, and in line with every single Wikipedia Policy I am aware of.*  I did build Walls of Text, but when Policy is missing, it seems like an appropriate reason to build such walls, ideally with the ultimate result in the long run serving as the basis for Wikipedia:Colorization which can avert the need for any such walls on any other Talk page in the future. I am actually exceptionally proud of what I've done here, and what it could mean for the long-term future of all of Wikipedia. Credit belongs to Centpacrr with the solid argument presented on the Ilia article, which has endured the test of many years now. All I was doing here was applying that same Consensus to this exactly parallel case, only now being applied to a photo of iconic historical status. This one gap between these two parallels was the reason for leaving the Monk Subsection uncollapsed. Because that very short example cuts straight to the heart of the question we all face here:
Is colorization good for Wikipedia?
It is a question that was answered in September of 2014, and reaffirmed hundreds of times since then. And here with the monk, it is clearly shown that colorization has the potential to fly with iconic images as well. I actually AGREE with key objections about the colorized Wright Flyer. I dove into the uncanny valley of photorealism. Sanna Dullaway has shown us the Promised Land over on the other side of the valley. She literally takes the Dull-away. So am I embarrassed to champion this role of Colorization Moses? No. Not at all. This is a movement. A movement of what Wikipedia can become. Peter Jackson is the Jesus on how to do colorization with encyclopedic accuracy (They Shall Not Grow Old trailer). In case anyone wasn't convinced by Sanna's monk.
* - I may have dropped the ball with one policy at the very end. Or rather, after the end. AGF. I asked anyone to provide a reason for why Full Collapse was preferable to my Tips Exposed Collapse. NOT ONE of three editors offered any justification. I do remain open to the possibility that legitimate justification does exist. --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
TLDR. So if in a later response I miss what you said above, like I did before, that's why. BilCat (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is your personalized TLDR recap (asked rhetorically, as I do not expect to be back to discuss):
An accepted way of handling extremely long discussion? What is so unacceptable with the solution I promoted? --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have said my piece. I will leave here once more. Hopefully on a more permanent basis. I have raised a flag on WP:Consensus ...and most recently on Wikipedia:Vandalism. I will leave it to you all to resolve these MAJOR issues. I will be glad to quickly return just to issue an apology if anyone shows me that I dropped the AGF ball. So goodbye y'all yet again. --Wright Stuf (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

My final post here for 2021

This EDIT was my proposal for how to properly collapse the Colorized Photo section above in order to minimize unnecessary clutter while maintaining Accessibility, preventing a literal cover up of a very important discussion. Both subsections were Fully Collapsed under strenuous protest by me, as violations of Wikipedia Policy. I maintain hope for a reasonable, rational resolution. It is up to us as a community to Impeach the actions which have happened by mob rule here. Throughout the entire discussion, from very beginning to bitter end, I persistently insisted on WP:Consensus to be followed. To this day, that has not been done. Buddhist monk Thích Quảng Đức has lit himself on fire in the hope that his protest will awaken an appeal to Common Sense. --Wright Stuf (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

<!-- If this one post remains unmolested, I will not be back here for the remainder of 2021.

(Exception being if someone were to request my input on a matter.) -->


A glimpse of what our colorized future could be

File:Wright Flyer - Wilbur Wright clings to his damaged flying machine after unsuccessful 1st trial 1903Dec14 (colorized by Jared Enos).jpg
Wilbur Wright clings to his damaged flying machine after an unsuccessful trial on December 14, 1903

To quote Steve Jobs, "There is one more thing." I found this astounding colorization effort on Saturday, done by Jared Enos (posted Jun 7, 2015)...

I will not add this to the article this year, but someone else might want to. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice image. I can imagine a small gallery near the bottom of pages of very historic black-and-white photographs featuring colorized images, although original research proponents can easily oppose such a thing. Both this and the colorized takeoff image give added historical presence, although as imagined by the image's creators. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wright_Flyer/Archive_1&oldid=1045674964"