This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A "BD-5 jet" has just gone down near Ottawa, possibly killing the unknown pilot: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/16/plane-crash.html?ref=rss Somegeek 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
More details, pilot's identity: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-planecrash20060616.html?ref=rss Somegeek 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
However heart touching or well written the section on Scott Manning is, I feel that it should be removed from this piece for a few reasons:
If anyone wants to make an entry on the pilot or the incident, please do, and link to it in this entry. I just don’t think that this section really works...
-- Schuyler s. 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The BD5-J that has the Guiness Record has never actually flown, and the man who built it has it up for sale. Many in the aviation community doubt that it will ever fly at the weight that it was certified at because of a lack of safety features. 69.207.190.17 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Paul Tomblin
How can someone crash a plane on june 27th of 2007 i fI am reading about it on the 24th of the same month?
Rodrigo Ramos ramos_trabado@yahoo.com
I'm considering removing this section. It's not that it's bad information, but it's really almost trivia. It was a builder-made one-off modification that didn't work out. I'm not sure that's really in keeping with the article, which is talking about the mainline developments. Comments? Maury 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note the advert tag indicates the need to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view to make it more encyclopedic and read less like a promotional piece. See WP:NPOV -- Ronz 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop with the edit-warring and discuss the problems. Edit-warring over a tag is absurd. -- Ronz 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from the article for discussion. I don't see how these meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM:
-- Ronz 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Hmm, possibly there are WP:COI issues then. I suggest that you recuse yourself from the editing over this particular website then. Shot info 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
SAFRAN has it's own article, so I've created an See also section for it. This eliminates any need for an external link that I can see. -- Ronz 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't so hard, was it? Could have done that in the first place. Stop stalking me by the way. Flybd5 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Try WP:EL#AVOID specifically #12. Your site is not a WP:RS. If you are aware of 'normal wikipedia practise' you would be aware that personal websites are removed all the time. Yours is no different. Shot info 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has large numbers of paragraphs with no references. It is possible that the reference at the end of the section is the actual reference, but it is unclear. I don't really want to slap fact tags everwhere, but since Flybd5 seems to have a more intimate knowledge of where the info is sourced from, perhaps he/she would like to add them? Shot info 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to move this to "See also" but then found it's not so easy to do so. Are there standards for airplanes to follow to list such information? Seems strange to place this below "External links." -- Ronz 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WTF is this? "Possible WP:SOCK. Please discuss why this link doesn't fail WPL#AVOID on talkpage" So, the story is that other editors might also be chiming in pro or con, but when someone makes a change that may support my argument you accuse them of being sockpuppets? Oh, I can't wait for other editors to look at this. Flybd5 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow... this amazes me. First, after restoring the article, after noticing a glaring omission, I get accused of being a SockPuppet??? Now you're telling me that I did it to spite you? Nice. This is EXACTLY why my Daughter's college has 10 rules on references. Rule #1, #2, #4, #8 and #10 all state "Wikipedia is not a valid reference." You've made assumptions about my motives that are simply not accurate. I modifed the site becuase that link belongs there. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't accuse me of doing something that you have no knowledge of. (In fact, I didn't even realize you had a "spam and edit-war" going on until my update dissapeared - you can check the logs!) What amazes me even more is that you actually spend your time doing useless edits like that, instead of actually helping the community. -- wjsteele 04:12, 10 October 2007
" Helping the Community" = [3] Shot info 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has a lot of references, but when you read it, the references are to oddball notes, rather than most of the claims. The reference tag is perfectly valid and it is a calling card to other editors to review the article and improve it. Like what happens at a lot of other Wikipedia articles. I personally don't mind the advert tag going but really, the article needs to be improved and we need to advertise that fact to the Community. I'm not going to revert, lest it be taken the wrong way, however adding a tag is perfectly acceptable to normal Wikipedia practise. Shot info 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going to take a backwards step for some time and see what happens. It's time for my chill pill.... :-) Shot info 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the entire article and all the notes, and there are not nearly enough sources for what's written. Note however that I've not checked any of the references in the "Bibliography" section. I think a good next step would be to change the bibliography references so there is a clear indication of where each is being used per WP:V -- Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
While the "Deliveries end" sub-section is better sourced, are WP:BLP issues given the poor sourcing and controversial claims regarding Jim Bede's business practices. These claims can be removed immediately and without further comment per WP:BLP, though I'd hope editors would discuss them instead. -- Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jim_Bede and Talk:Jim_Bede. Once the matter is solved there, it can be addressed here as well. -- Ronz 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The references in the "Bibliography" section were all added by Bzuk, and in edits that make it impossible to determine how or even if they are being used as references:
We need to sort out if and how these are being used. -- Ronz 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
All the latest efforts seem to be linked to an individual editor's actions and now constitute a kind of "panic", see WP:PANIC. A number of suggestions were previously made on this page for editors to keep cool and have a dispationate approach to the subject. An experienced editor and admin who was involved in a major rewrite of the article has already been approached to review the article. Any continuing efforts to improve the article are appreciated but give the review some time to take effect. FWIW Bzuk 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC). I've tagged the article to invite others' attention and assistance. I'm sorry that you disagree. -- Ronz 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If the editor who is making all the changes can read the edit summary, these were references placed in the further reading and were moved there only temporarily until the sources can be accessed. Due to the use of a new template the further reading should now go into the references section because of a change in the font size that results on some browsers. FWIW Bzuk 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Per WP:NPOV, unless a independent source is provided to determine proper WP:WEIGHT, the content should be removed. Note that one of the persons involved is an editor here who is currently the subject of an open WP:COIN report. -- Ronz 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My jocular retort is: The editor/admin/fac totum who made the primary revision is presently engaged in reviewing the article. This is an article essentially about an aircraft project and not a "true" biography; it is listed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft project. Removing or reverting information especially when under discussion or contention by others, is not advisable... and who said this article was "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" when there are 35 citations in a small/medium-sized article and seven bibliographical references? FWIW, this is "above" the usual standard established for this type of article and article size, generally none or very few. [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
David Noland (February 2008). "The Elusive Dream: The Minijet, the Weejet, and other good ideas that went nowhere". Air and Space Magazine. This is published by the Smithsonian Institution.
It mentions the BD5-J. I hope it is considered fair use to quote the entire mention of the BD-5 here on the Talk page:
Bede BD-5J—Perhaps no airplane has inspired more excitement among private pilots than the jet version of Jim Bede’s tiny BD-5 homebuilt kit airplane. Powered by a French TRS-18 turbojet of 225 pounds thrust, the BD-5J first flew in 1973, and became an instant superstar at airshows, performing previously unheard-of maneuvers like the quadruple vertical snap roll. Bede Aircraft went bankrupt before any complete kits were delivered, but a number of determined builders have carried on, and a handful of BD-5Js are flying today. With its aerobatic prowess, miniscule size, and space-ship looks, the BD-5J remains the epitome of the private pilot’s jet fantasy. Hollywood liked its look, too; James Bond (played by Roger Moore) flew one in the opening scenes of the 1983 movie Octopussy.
I don't know if this can qualify as a reference for any claims currently in the article, but if so, it might be useful. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My friend Dave Noland can't spell minuscule, for whatever that's worth...Smithsonian or not. (I'm a member of the Board of Editors of Smithsonian Air & Space magazine, and such a glaring error embarrasses me.) 173.62.17.119 ( talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The article says the most BD-5s completed are flying, while the info box says that most are airworthy, but few are flying. - ZLEA ( talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bede BD-5. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A "BD-5 jet" has just gone down near Ottawa, possibly killing the unknown pilot: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/16/plane-crash.html?ref=rss Somegeek 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
More details, pilot's identity: http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-planecrash20060616.html?ref=rss Somegeek 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
However heart touching or well written the section on Scott Manning is, I feel that it should be removed from this piece for a few reasons:
If anyone wants to make an entry on the pilot or the incident, please do, and link to it in this entry. I just don’t think that this section really works...
-- Schuyler s. 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The BD5-J that has the Guiness Record has never actually flown, and the man who built it has it up for sale. Many in the aviation community doubt that it will ever fly at the weight that it was certified at because of a lack of safety features. 69.207.190.17 02:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Paul Tomblin
How can someone crash a plane on june 27th of 2007 i fI am reading about it on the 24th of the same month?
Rodrigo Ramos ramos_trabado@yahoo.com
I'm considering removing this section. It's not that it's bad information, but it's really almost trivia. It was a builder-made one-off modification that didn't work out. I'm not sure that's really in keeping with the article, which is talking about the mainline developments. Comments? Maury 19:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note the advert tag indicates the need to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view to make it more encyclopedic and read less like a promotional piece. See WP:NPOV -- Ronz 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's stop with the edit-warring and discuss the problems. Edit-warring over a tag is absurd. -- Ronz 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from the article for discussion. I don't see how these meet WP:EL and WP:SPAM:
-- Ronz 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Hmm, possibly there are WP:COI issues then. I suggest that you recuse yourself from the editing over this particular website then. Shot info 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
SAFRAN has it's own article, so I've created an See also section for it. This eliminates any need for an external link that I can see. -- Ronz 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't so hard, was it? Could have done that in the first place. Stop stalking me by the way. Flybd5 01:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Try WP:EL#AVOID specifically #12. Your site is not a WP:RS. If you are aware of 'normal wikipedia practise' you would be aware that personal websites are removed all the time. Yours is no different. Shot info 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has large numbers of paragraphs with no references. It is possible that the reference at the end of the section is the actual reference, but it is unclear. I don't really want to slap fact tags everwhere, but since Flybd5 seems to have a more intimate knowledge of where the info is sourced from, perhaps he/she would like to add them? Shot info 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried to move this to "See also" but then found it's not so easy to do so. Are there standards for airplanes to follow to list such information? Seems strange to place this below "External links." -- Ronz 01:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WTF is this? "Possible WP:SOCK. Please discuss why this link doesn't fail WPL#AVOID on talkpage" So, the story is that other editors might also be chiming in pro or con, but when someone makes a change that may support my argument you accuse them of being sockpuppets? Oh, I can't wait for other editors to look at this. Flybd5 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow... this amazes me. First, after restoring the article, after noticing a glaring omission, I get accused of being a SockPuppet??? Now you're telling me that I did it to spite you? Nice. This is EXACTLY why my Daughter's college has 10 rules on references. Rule #1, #2, #4, #8 and #10 all state "Wikipedia is not a valid reference." You've made assumptions about my motives that are simply not accurate. I modifed the site becuase that link belongs there. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't accuse me of doing something that you have no knowledge of. (In fact, I didn't even realize you had a "spam and edit-war" going on until my update dissapeared - you can check the logs!) What amazes me even more is that you actually spend your time doing useless edits like that, instead of actually helping the community. -- wjsteele 04:12, 10 October 2007
" Helping the Community" = [3] Shot info 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has a lot of references, but when you read it, the references are to oddball notes, rather than most of the claims. The reference tag is perfectly valid and it is a calling card to other editors to review the article and improve it. Like what happens at a lot of other Wikipedia articles. I personally don't mind the advert tag going but really, the article needs to be improved and we need to advertise that fact to the Community. I'm not going to revert, lest it be taken the wrong way, however adding a tag is perfectly acceptable to normal Wikipedia practise. Shot info 06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm going to take a backwards step for some time and see what happens. It's time for my chill pill.... :-) Shot info 07:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over the entire article and all the notes, and there are not nearly enough sources for what's written. Note however that I've not checked any of the references in the "Bibliography" section. I think a good next step would be to change the bibliography references so there is a clear indication of where each is being used per WP:V -- Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
While the "Deliveries end" sub-section is better sourced, are WP:BLP issues given the poor sourcing and controversial claims regarding Jim Bede's business practices. These claims can be removed immediately and without further comment per WP:BLP, though I'd hope editors would discuss them instead. -- Ronz 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jim_Bede and Talk:Jim_Bede. Once the matter is solved there, it can be addressed here as well. -- Ronz 19:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The references in the "Bibliography" section were all added by Bzuk, and in edits that make it impossible to determine how or even if they are being used as references:
We need to sort out if and how these are being used. -- Ronz 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
All the latest efforts seem to be linked to an individual editor's actions and now constitute a kind of "panic", see WP:PANIC. A number of suggestions were previously made on this page for editors to keep cool and have a dispationate approach to the subject. An experienced editor and admin who was involved in a major rewrite of the article has already been approached to review the article. Any continuing efforts to improve the article are appreciated but give the review some time to take effect. FWIW Bzuk 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC). I've tagged the article to invite others' attention and assistance. I'm sorry that you disagree. -- Ronz 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If the editor who is making all the changes can read the edit summary, these were references placed in the further reading and were moved there only temporarily until the sources can be accessed. Due to the use of a new template the further reading should now go into the references section because of a change in the font size that results on some browsers. FWIW Bzuk 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC).
Per WP:NPOV, unless a independent source is provided to determine proper WP:WEIGHT, the content should be removed. Note that one of the persons involved is an editor here who is currently the subject of an open WP:COIN report. -- Ronz 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My jocular retort is: The editor/admin/fac totum who made the primary revision is presently engaged in reviewing the article. This is an article essentially about an aircraft project and not a "true" biography; it is listed as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft project. Removing or reverting information especially when under discussion or contention by others, is not advisable... and who said this article was "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" when there are 35 citations in a small/medium-sized article and seven bibliographical references? FWIW, this is "above" the usual standard established for this type of article and article size, generally none or very few. [:¬∆ Bzuk 04:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC).
David Noland (February 2008). "The Elusive Dream: The Minijet, the Weejet, and other good ideas that went nowhere". Air and Space Magazine. This is published by the Smithsonian Institution.
It mentions the BD5-J. I hope it is considered fair use to quote the entire mention of the BD-5 here on the Talk page:
Bede BD-5J—Perhaps no airplane has inspired more excitement among private pilots than the jet version of Jim Bede’s tiny BD-5 homebuilt kit airplane. Powered by a French TRS-18 turbojet of 225 pounds thrust, the BD-5J first flew in 1973, and became an instant superstar at airshows, performing previously unheard-of maneuvers like the quadruple vertical snap roll. Bede Aircraft went bankrupt before any complete kits were delivered, but a number of determined builders have carried on, and a handful of BD-5Js are flying today. With its aerobatic prowess, miniscule size, and space-ship looks, the BD-5J remains the epitome of the private pilot’s jet fantasy. Hollywood liked its look, too; James Bond (played by Roger Moore) flew one in the opening scenes of the 1983 movie Octopussy.
I don't know if this can qualify as a reference for any claims currently in the article, but if so, it might be useful. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My friend Dave Noland can't spell minuscule, for whatever that's worth...Smithsonian or not. (I'm a member of the Board of Editors of Smithsonian Air & Space magazine, and such a glaring error embarrasses me.) 173.62.17.119 ( talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The article says the most BD-5s completed are flying, while the info box says that most are airworthy, but few are flying. - ZLEA ( talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bede BD-5. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)