Talk:Paragliding/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request

Economic impact of paragliding

Soon after the introduction of paragliding, it spurred economic development throughout Europe: "paragliders quickly became the new fad of European aviation," and as a result, "teleferique companies, mountain-top restaurants, landing-site restaurants, tourism bureaus, and other organizations encouraged paragliding because it attracted tourists and built business.

Since paragliding is an activity can profitably take place in hilly, natural terrain, it has the potential of drawing tourism in such areas, often rural countryside with declining populations and a sagging economy. In the Portuguese village of Linhares da Beira, paragliding is one of a number of outdoor activities which play a part in the local economy, and while the authors of a 2007 study noted that as yet the economic impact of paragliding was low, it had the potential of making a significant contribution. An additional difficulty in promoting paragliding in environments comparable to Linhares da Beira--a medieval town in a rural, hilly countryside, the kind of environment where heritage tourism is becoming more and more important--is that it appears that "paragliding and heritage tourism appeal to separate market segments." Moreover, such rural communities are often quite conservative, and not so likely to promote a "joint brand" which would combine heritage tourism with something as modern as paragliding.

Paragliding is an important touristic activity in mountainous areas such as the Himalayas, with significant activity in Himachal Pradesh.

• Costa, Carla A.; Chalip, Laurence (2008). "Adventure Sport Tourism in Rural Revitalisation: An Ethnographic Evaluation". In Mike E. Weed (ed.). Sport & Tourism: A Reader. Routledge. pp. 133–51. ISBN 9780415426879.
• Jreat, Manoj (2004). Tourism in Himachal Pradesh. Indus. p. 126. ISBN 9788173871573.
• Kohli, M.S. (2004). Mountains of India: Tourism, Adventure, Pilgrimage. Indus Publishing. pp. 289–90. ISBN 9788173871351.
• Thomas, Robert J. (1995). New product success stories: lessons from leading innovators. John Wiley and Sons. p. 82. ISBN 9780471013204.

Drmies (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this edit; I think it gives too much weight to paragliding's importance to the tourism industry, which rates only a brief mention at most. Manormadman (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks. It's a paragraph and a half, and it cites more, and more reliable sources, than the entire article, which offers nothing but unreliable websites. I see you don't offer any evidence that its importance is so slight, of course, except your opinion--despite the fact that, verifiably, there are many published references that address the topic. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

But this is an article about paragliding, not about paragliding's impact on tourism! I find it strange that you think that, in an article about paragliding, comparing and contrasting a paraglider with other aircraft is unencyclopaedic -- but comparing and contrasting paragliding tourism with heritage tourism is not! I've just had a look at the Wikipedia article about cheese; no mention of tourism, although I'm sure plenty of tourists visit dairies in cheese-making areas. Manormadman (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And paragliding's impact on tourism is not relevant in an article on paragliding? The way this here works is this: if reliable sources publish on a topic, and that topic is a topic that's also a topic in the encyclopedia, then it's probably worth mentioning. But I've spent enough time trying to convince you. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The cheese article is open for adding how cheese has changed the local economy of some cities. Go for it; such is an aspect of cheese. Joefaust (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A brief mention, yes, but not a reference to every town affected by paragliding that's ever been mentioned in print. I think perhaps I'm beginning to change my mind and wonder if there should be a separate article entitled Paraglider... Manormadman (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think if there are hard numbers that are associated with the industry of paragliding including the manufacturers they deserve a mention. Perhaps a single example quoted as well, but for the moment the article has other issues to be addressed with regard to Undue. A section on sport value/tourism added now could be expanded later. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this edit. Although the references seem reliable it is not WP:TOPIC. This edit and the book it references would be more suitable to somehting like the Sports tourism page. I believe visitors reading the paragliding page are interested in learning about paragliding, the activity, sport and pastime. I think I can see a consensus building. 88xxxx (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The above is how an admin responds formally to these sorts of requests. Please note that this does not in any way mean that I either agree or disagree with Drmies or Manormadman. All I'm doing is noticing that there is not currently a consensus for this edit, and that therefore I can't do it through protection. Now, if several other editors all said that they thought that Manormadman is wrong, and gave coherent reasons for doing so, and especially if those reasons were soundly based in policy, I still might make the edit, even though there is one objection. Consensus does not require 100% agreement, but it does require some evidence that there is a general approval for a certain action. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel the problem with the above is that it's WP:TailWaggingDog (OK, that doesn't exist, but maybe it should). The problem is that there is a scarcity of information on paragliding online that meets WP citation quality, and much of it treats PG as an example to demonstrate some other point so its information about PG makes no attempt to be balanced or comprehensive (indeed why should it; it's enough for their purposes to be correct, passing over the question of whether they are). However, for our purposes balance is important. We want (please, please, let this statement be uncontroversial) this article to be such that someone who knows nothing about PG can read it and gain a good general understanding of what it is, preferably with some pleasure in the process, or at least not having had their eyes bleed with the strain. If you try to do that by looking up the sparse sources online and then building the article from there you will necessarily end up with a (superbly cited) hotchpotch of snippets of information that give a very incomplete and disjointed view of the subject, and you are unlikely to achieve any aspect of the goal.

Now, there are quite a few good printed books on the subject, some of them in English; each of the 'expert' editors will have a few on their bookshelves. In addition, the veracity of the vast majority of the information that the article should contain is uncontroversial and common knowledge to anyone involved in the sport (and in possession of a full set of marbles). My understanding of WP practice is that uncontroversial information shouldn't have citations as they introduce unnecessary clutter. My feeling is that numbers should have some reference to back them, but unless some statement is challenged on factual grounds it shouldn't have a citation unless there is a natural source. I think that the vast majority of disputes will be about tone and what info to exclude rather than what the facts are. This will of course mean that a lot of the article wont have citations, but this will reflect the fact that the information is uncontroversial rather than there being no possible source.

There are a number of web sites that provide useful information and that I feel should be considered citable. Most national associations have web sites which contain careful information about the sport, and in addition these are probably the only possible source for good accident statistics (other sources will almost certainly be based on their figures). I believe some national associations are recognised by government (eg France) and merit being considered a serious source. Note that there are also some splinter associations, but the ones that I know of are really tiny compared to the main national association and shouldn't be considered authoritative. There are also a couple of international organisations. CIVL is the part of the FAI that deals with PG and HG sporting competitions, world records, the world championships and world pilot rankings. PWCA is a private association that organises world class competitions, sanctioned by the FAI, and can be considered serious. Apart from these there isn't much out there that can be relied upon that I can think of.

ParaglidingForum.com is the worlds leading discussion forum for PG subjects. Obviously, being an open forum there is a rich mixture of gold and (let's say) trash, however I was wondering if it would be considered a reasonable source for quotations from some of the world experts on the field? Several of the worlds top designers and pilots post comment there. Advice?

I'd appreciate any or all of the 'non-expert' experienced editors giving their WP take on this. Jontyla (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Forums are never reliable sources--not even for the quotes of experts, because we have no way to verify the identity of the people making the quotes. However, books are absolutely valid references, even if they are not online at all. Of course, not every single book printed counts as a reliable source; we tend to look at who the publisher is, sometimes who the author is, and, in narrow cases, the actual content of the book. We never say "Book X is right. Book Y contradicts book X, so Book Y must be unreliable", but if a book is clearly badly written, or is simply out of date, it might be rules unreliable. If you add a book source for a book that isn't online, and someone objects, you may be asked to provide clear quotes from the book (or someone might even request copies of the pages, if it's really extreme). Usually it doesn't come to that (outside of a few particular highly contentious topic areas that I know of). As for the national associations...it would depend on exactly what was being verified. As you yourself point out, there are splinter groups, and we can't just say "The bigger/older/more famous group is 'correct' while the splinter group is 'wrong'". But, again, it may be possible. As for needing citations or not? Well, it sounds to me like a lot of this isn't uncontroversial. Of course, if the controversy is merely with a tiny fragment, then it's not relevant (WP:FRINGE), but I don't know if that is the case here. In all fairness, I will say that I'm part of the newer crop of Wikipedia editors (i.e., many of those who have become serious editors within the last few years) that actually wants the vast majority of Wikipedia to be sourced (i.e., that finds the "uncontroversial" exception to be extremely narrow), so my opinion may or may not be the standard one across WP. Luckily, we have community noticeboards to help sort out the finicky details. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the controversy is merely with a tiny fragment; the difficulty is with demonstrating this. As for the splinter groups, we're talking about typically one or two people who have had a dust up with the main association representing 5k - 30k people - very thin splinters indeed.

I take your point about forums (fora?) in general, but PGF insists on real names. In addition most of the big names bump into each other from time to time and can compare notes. I think it very unlikely that anyone could impersonate one of the experts successfully without being rapidly unmasked. Still, maybe we could revisit this if the question arises in practice. Jontyla (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (10/24/11)

Replace current first two sentences:

"Paragliding generally refers to the recreational and competitive flying sport. A paraglider is a free-flying, foot-launched glider aircraft."

with the following:

"Paragliding is a recreational and competitive flying sport using a paraglider, a free-flying, foot-launched glider aircraft."

Should be the exact same content, written more smoothly. (You don't need "generally refers to" language to say what the article is about.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Theoldsparkle, there is not yet consensus on the nature of the article. But assume the article is paragliding for sport and recreation. Then to avoid wrongly defining "paraglider", it might be better to just say that "Paragliding pilots use paragliders." The challenge is that paragliding pilots use a machine that is versioned to be foot launchable; however the machine (with good RS) paraglider is clearly not restricted as you suggest. WP has articles showing that there are paragliders that are not foot launchable, are not intended for foot launching, are too tiny to pilot-fly foot launchable, are too big and payloaded without room for human pilot, etc. The challenge in the introduction is to stay on "paragliding" and the particular type of paraglider used in the "paragliding" intended. It is not the task of article "Paragliding" to define for all the full spectrum of what is a "paraglider" but only perhaps define the particular range of paragliders used in paragliding. So, with your suggested edit, have a try like this:

"Paragliding is a recreational and competitive flying sport using versions of paragliders that are adapted for foot-launched gliding and soaring.

Such would keep the phrasing out of the machine-definition business. Joefaust (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving to allow paragliding that is not recreation or sport:

"Paragliding is the flying of paragliders. A major sector of paragliding is in recreation and competitive flying sport using versions of paragliders that are adapted for foot-launched gliding and soaring.

Such allows the factual realm of model paraglider pilots flying the models for hobby and science and experimentation; they are paragliding. And such leave open the paragliding done in UAVs and in practical applications that are not recreation or competitive sport. Joefaust (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the apparent debate over the definition; I was simply hoping that as long as the article is frozen with this definition that it could be expressed using wording that isn't stilted and weird. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Theoldsparkle's suggested edit of the opening sentence seems eminently sensible to me.Manormadman (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd favour some slight modifications. Replace flying sport with a reference to adventure sport; one of the valid criticisms of this article is that it was a bit too soft on the dangers of the sport. Calling it an adventure sport from the go get helps put it in an appropriate context. Also, glider aircraft should be a reference since there is already an article on this. I favour adding 'lightweight', unless other editors feel this makes it too overloaded. Thus:

• Paragliding is a recreational and competitive adventure sport flying paragliders, lightweight, free-flying, foot-launched glider aircraft.

Jontyla (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing protection

Okay, since the two main causes of edit warring are no longer here (one was topic banned, the other essentially admitted to being a bad faith contributor only here to stop the first one), I'm lifting protection on this article. I'm still monitoring it, and will put the protection back up if edit warring resumes. Of course, please keep conversing here, considering possible changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's rather hard on 88xxxx (I'm assuming that that is who your are referring to when you say bad faith). He has indicated that he was motivated to create his account in order to counter the effects of the first editor, but I believe that he was motivated to do so purely because he felt that the first editor was making changes that severely degraded the quality of this small neck of the WP woods and that he was prepared to spend some of his time in counteracting that. I don't see how that can be considered bad faith. The fact that he does not now wish to spend more time making the article better than it was before is (in my view) regrettable, but a perfectly respectable choice. Jontyla (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work, Qwyrxian.

A suggestion: the article currently says that paragliding developed from hang gliding. I think this is wrong (and is unsourced), although of course paragliding has much in common with hang gliding. I think the article should probably say that the first foot-launched, human-carrying paraglider was invented by David Barish in the 1960s, but the sport did not catch on then; it started again in the 1970s using parachutes and derivatives thereof, since when it's been practised continuously. If people think this is a fair summary, I'll dig up sources and put something like it in. Manormadman (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for intro.

Paragliding is the recreational and competitive adventure sport of flying paragliders: lightweight, free-flying, foot-launched glider aircraft with no rigid primary structure. The pilot sits in a harness suspended below a hollow fabric wing whose shape is formed by its suspension lines, the pressure of air entering vents in the front of the wing and the aerodynamic forces of the air flowing over the outside.

Despite not using an engine, paraglider flights can last many hours and cover many hundreds of kilometres, though flights of 1-2 hours and covering a few tens of kilometres are more the norm. By skilful exploitation of sources of lift the pilot may gain height, often climbing to a few kilometres over the surrounding countryside.

Paragliders are unique among soaring aircraft in being easily portable. The complete equipment packs into a rucksack and can be carried easily on the pilot's back, in a car, or on public transport. In comparison with other air sports this substantially simplifies travel to a suitable take off spot, selection of a landing place and return travel.

Related Activities

Paragliding is a close cousin of hang gliding and hang glider and paraglider launches are often found in close proximity. Despite the considerable difference in equipment the two activities offer similar pleasures and some pilots are involved in both sports.

The addition of a small engine to the paraglider has lead to the development of powered paragliding.

Paragliders of reduced size have given rise to the separate sport of speed riding. These wings have increased speed, though they are not normally capable of soaring flight. The sport involves taking off on skis or on foot and swooping rapidly down in close proximity to the slope, even periodically touching it if skis are used.

Paragliding can be of local commercial importance. Paid accompanied tandem flights are available in many mountainous regions, both in the winter and in the summer. In addition there are many schools offering courses, and guides who lead groups of more experienced pilots exploring an area. Finally there are the manufacturers and the associated repair and after sales services.

Paraglider like wings also find other uses, for example in ship propulsion and wind energy exploitation, and are related to some forms of power kite.

End of proposed intro - add comments after this point

I think the current introduction is significantly worse that the 'original' one, so I propose the preceding to completely replace it. I've added the 'related activities' subsection to group what remains of what Joe was trying to add and I've added some more content that I feel fits.

Read it through, trying to imagine that you are someone who knows almost nothing about PG and see if you think that you come away with a feel for what it's all about. Comments welcome. Jontyla (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not bad at all, Jontyla. I still feel that the commercial importance of paragliding is not big enough to feature in the intro. Manormadman (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it in myself, but given that there seems to be a desire by more than one editor to have something about commercial matters this seemed a reasonable compromise. Jontyla (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of negative comments I'll install this version tomorrow. Jontyla (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Jontyla (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Section refs

Section refs added.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

History

I'm going to have a go at the history section in the next few days. At present I feel it is much too heavily weighted to the prehistory of the equipment rather than telling the story of the evolution of the sport. I plan on removing some of this clutter (and the self contradiction about the origin of the term 'paragliding') and adding a bit more explanation. In particular I was thinking of making it clear that PG is a convergence of the following threads:

• development in parachuting - the ram air chute
• development in free flying - the ethos of HG
• parascending and other uses of chutes for 'flying' (barish etc). (not 100% sure about this one - it was more a sideshow than a direct line in the development, except in the UK)

After the Mieussy guys I'm going to put how the removal of parachute constraints (opening shock) drove PG development (kevlar lines, non porous material, aspect ratio, cell numbers) and where this is going today. I'll include something about the development of homologation. On the activity side I'm going to touch on the PG/HG wars and their resolution (more or less) and the way PG activity development paralleled HG development. Finally, current trends.

All suggestions/comments gratefully received. Jontyla (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you add must be sourced. I'm a bit disappointed that though I unprotected the article, I'm not seeing the changes it definitely needs. I'm strongly tempted to relinquish my ability to act as an admin here just so I can go in and start cutting all of the unsourced information, the non-neutral statements, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aiming to run through it section by section, removing unsourced stuff in the process. I think it needs a top to bottom cleanup. Jontyla (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced info coming

Just a warning to anyone watching: in a week or two (or possibly later, since I may forget), I'm taking out everything unsourced. This article has been unsourced and yet extremely specific for a long time. Wikipedia policy, WP:V says that it's better to have no information than to have information that is dubious/unverifiable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we replace some of the photos?

Almost all photographs in the article are of ridge soaring - is it possible to replace some of this redundancy with mountain & thermal flights? JanBielawski (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring based on German version

The German version of this article is an excellent article since 2005. Whenever I have time I would like to change the format of the English version to bring i up to Standard.

For others to help me with this i have translated the German contents:

   1 History
   2 Equipment
       2.1 Wing
       2.2 Harness
       2.3 Instruments
       2.4 Clothing
       2.5 Further equipment
   3 Launching, flying, thermalling, landing
       3.1 Launching
           3.1.1 Forward launch
           3.1.2 Reverse launch
           3.1.3 Towed launch
           3.1.4 Coast launch (combination of coast soaring and reverse/cobra launch - in discussion to be removed)
       3.2 Control
       3.3 Breaking
       3.4 Accelerated flight
       3.5 Thermalling, soaring
       3.6 Maneuvers and flight conditions (covering fast decents and collapses)
       3.7 Landing
       3.8 Dangers
           3.8.1 Thrill sport and skill sport (excerpt from academic research on the dangers of paragliding)
           3.8.2 Causes of accidents
           3.8.3 Accidents in numbers 
   4 Training, licencing and legal frameworks (focus on Alps in German Wiki)
       4.1 Germany / Austria 
           4.1.1 Basic training
           4.1.2 Cross country flying
           4.1.3 Sites
           4.1.4 Tandem flying
           4.1.5 Instructor training
           4.1.6 Insurances
           4.1.7 Youth development
       4.2 Switzerland
       4.3 Italy
       4.4 France
       4.5 Other countries
   5 Competitive flying
   6 Records
   7 Fascination
   8 Tandem flying
   9 Paragliding and the environment
   10 Related activities
       10.1 Sky diving
       10.2 Hang gliding
       10.3 Gliding
       10.4 Speed Flying
   11 National associations
   12 Related 
   13 References
   14 External links
   15 Sources

NainDeathlegs (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)