This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ultraflight Lazair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There are some reports that a late variant was used as the basis for the airplane in the film "The God's must be crazy II". Can anyone confirm this? Thanks -- Avimimus ( talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This website [1] seems to think so. From the photos that I have seen it looks like it was a Lazair II with full enclosure. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC) . I am Dale Kramer, the Lazair designer. There are definitely Lazair parts used in its construction but it was HIGHLY modified and my factory never sold an enclosure for the two place. I do not want my name associated with such an ugly cockpit enclosure ;) DaleKramer ( talk) 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Any other editors who have soloed a Lazair can put this box on their user page, if they so desire. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|{{ User:Ahunt/Lazair}} |
|
Usage |
Hello ahunt, I have watched the Lazair Wikipedia entry over the years and wondered who was doing such a good job with it and I think it was you ;). As you have seen, I have just recently decided to contribute to the page and have made some changes that were on my ToDo list and I have finally gotten to them... DaleKramer ( talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In principle I agree with that and I will stop now, undo what you want and I will leave it incorrect until I may decide to battle it out here to have it corrected ... which is also not good for history if I do not choose to come back in order to battle for correctness ... DaleKramer ( talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with references [1], [2], [5] and [10], could you provide me with links to the document/s?
How bizarre is it that, it appears to me, current citations in this article are linking to documents from people who may have misquoted me or have incorrect facts in them...
Some References do not even take you to the supposed source that verifies their appropriate statements in the article.
The statement that the Lazair was a contraction of "Lazy-Air" did come from me and has been quoted may times over the last 40 years. The people propagating that 'simple' single reason, simply ignored the other two reasons I told them at the time (I have always told people all 3 reasons). The single reason cited is only a partial answer to that question, how bizarre is it that I now have to get a source other than me to fully explain where the the name Lazair came from....
I won't go much further here to get the correct facts out there in this article.
I think a lot of the recently added 'Citation needed' labels should be removed.
Please whittle your 'Citation needed' list down to something reasonable before I start having a plethora of 'Citations needed' labels added.
Why do I need a citation to correct the name of the Manufacturer/s of the Lazair when the manufacturer that was originally there, was factually incorrect? The factually incorrect manufacturer is what needs the 'Citation needed' flag.
There has to be some reasonableness to adding 'Citation needed' labels....
I also, disagree with your continued removal of anything that highlights the 'Noteworthy Accolades' of the Lazair, which have hard verifiable links to sources in their References, as opposed to References that have no links attached or which are written by the person citing the Reference.
I have not had the patience to even fully review all of the numerous 'Citations needed' which you placed on my edits, but the above are a few of my replies.
One thing for sure, I will view the validity of ALL Wikipedia articles with much more skeptical eyes in the future....
I am on my patience limit with trying to have the errors that existed in the page corrected... DaleKramer ( talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, be prepared for a lot of 'Citations needed' placed on existing text of the article, prior to my edits.
I will begin a search for Wikipedia articles that separate a list of 'Noteworthy Accolades' for the subject of the article, my memory tells me that I have seen many articles like that.
Having the Lazair honoured with a stamp, is not an 'Operational History' entry...
There are still no documents that come up when References 1,2,5 an 10 are clicked... DaleKramer ( talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope I will still be allowed to ad my 'Citation needed' flags on content that has no valid reference under the same rules as are being applied to my edits. I believe that when a COI is the most reliable source of information on an article topic, then that should be allowed to stand unless there is proof that the statements are not true. To have any other way of obtaining the most reliable information on an articles topic would be a disservice to history. I have strong opinions on that and I am surprised that such a hard stance is being taken with me. The COI policy document does not forbid COI involvement, I think I am that special case... You are going to get me to giveup trying to get the truth out there, is that what you want. Right now if I do not provide sources other than my word for all the nit picky facts that were 'Citation needed' flagged, then the correct history will revert to the incorrect history, just because someone randomly said it was true and in fact it is not true... That will be a sad day... (Sorry, I forgot to sign this edit at the time of the edit, I have signed it late, so that it would not appear that I was trying to make an anonymous comment...) DaleKramer ( talk) 14:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, with regard to a category similar to 'Noteworthy Accolades', please see the 'Awards and honors' section for the Glenn Curtiss Wikipedia article. (I am sure there are many more...)
DaleKramer (
talk)
23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, how does the fact that there are 5 unlinked references (the numbers have just changed but they are all authored by 'Hunt, Adam') which are 'magazine articles' and apparently not available for scrutiny, change the fact that, without the actual article, there is no way to make sure that it is a good reference that backs up the statements which reference them? DaleKramer ( talk) 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not an 'evil politician' or the like and I stand by my integrity and public reputation, again, I should be the exception to COI here... Personally, I don't see why you couldn't let the evil politician rant here, I am sure that instantly, provable references would surface that would end up removing any incorrect statements from his public rant... That is better than having incorrect statements stand for years or maybe even forever if I give up trying to correct them here... I will try to withhold further comment here until Steelpillow has had a chance to clean up the article... DaleKramer ( talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok I give up now, I am the designer of the Lazair series of ultralight aircraft that were manufactured by my companies, UltraFlight Incorporated and UltraFlight Manufacturing Ltd.
You can only find that FACT and MANY others in the edit history of the article (unless they disappear in the future), in edits that I once made to the page and that were undone.
The 'truth', as presented by Wikipedia, would certainly be changed to my version, if the legal system were to have a look here.
For instance, a lot of the current errors in the article would be viewed as hearsay due to the fact that the article claims that Dale Kramer did this or that, because of something...
When I speak about the complete reasons for which I did something, it would NOT be considered hearsay...
When I say the Lazair kit price was $2,495 US in 1979, that information should stand unless someone else shows overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect...
Why does the currently listed price of USD $4600 (1983) stand without a 'citation needed' tag, or just removed the way my addition to that price (USD $2495 (1979)) was simply removed ?
I am not going to battle any further here to have all the errors corrected...
Someday I will put the truth out there on a webpage that I (or my ancestors) control.... DaleKramer ( talk) 13:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you are getting my point, I do not care about Wikipedia sacred policies, they are stopping the untruth from being corrected here..
Sadly, the original (incorrect) posted data will remain the truth because I will NOT jump through hoops to correct it.
Where were the hoops when the incorrect info was published...
Where are the 5 documents authored by 'Hunt, Adam' (currently cited 22 times out of the 52 reference citings in the article) which seem to know more than I do about the Lazair? I need to peruse them for accuracy...
So many articles have been written over the years where much of their content came from interviews with me. Fortunately most of them published a correct interpretation of what I said, but a few did not. Wikipedia seems to take articles as gospel, such a shame...
My memory should be enough, over having some British registration document error, where neither their government, nor the registrant had any interest in confirming the legal name of the manufacturer... If hard evidence comes to light which proves my memory is faulty, then and only then should you flag it 'citation needed', notify me by email of the 'citation needed' flag and then give me a chance to prove it or delete it after the standard appropriate time period.
So, I will not provide anything more than my memory here, which I have already provided and those memory edits have been removed.
They should not have been removed unless/until someone cites HARD evidence, not like that weak British document, that my memory failed me.
At that point I will gladly be the person to undo my comment...
A note at the top of the article such that there are 'from memory' statements from the 'father' of the articles subject should be enough... and that note would give the conspiracists even more energy to find that hard evidence to counter my memory...
With regard to replacing 'Ultraflight Lazair' in the name with 'UltraFlight Lazair', again a questionable Wikipedia policy will lead to most/some people seeing that word as 'ultralight' (without the f) which is precisely why we capitalize the F in the first place (more often we capitalized the whole word to ULTRAFLIGHT, where again, it is easier to distinguish the 'F'). If you chose to stay within that title policy, please just remove the word Ultraflight from the title...
Why was MAX capitalized in the 'Boeing 737 MAX' article? That is justification to me that 'UltraFlight Lazair' should be used here...
I am sure you know the answer to this so, could you save me some research time by answering this simple question, is there a way for me to receive email notifications of when someone places a 'citation needed' flag on some text I have changed/added to an article? DaleKramer ( talk) 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Steelpillow, I have chosen to add just one 'Citation needed' flag (not sure why the syntax did not work...). If I were to add flags for the rest of the article, or remove text as my text has been removed, under the same rules that were used for how my text was treated, there would not be much left, so that is where I will stop.
I can however see that you truly wish to have the truth published and applaud some of your edits. If people ever want to see the text that is in question here, I hope that they will always be able to search through the articles edit history for edits under my name.
I have set up my preferences as you so graciously suggested and I will be 'low effort lurking' out there to see whether something bothers me enough again to come back... Thanks for your sincere effort to work within your guidelines in order to address my concerns, sadly it did not fully succeed...
P.S. Please fix the link that has been broken which links to a hi-res image of the stamp, currently Reference [3]...
AND, I am still quite hurt by the fact that I am not considered a reliable source for information that originated from me or that can only be verified by me (as noted in the many 'Citation need' flags that still exist on the few of my edits that still remain)... DaleKramer ( talk) 20:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
AND, just because it was so easy to find this, I have decided to post a link to it. So do with the article which I wrote in it, what you think best... https://www.wgc.mb.ca/static/freeflight/04_04.pdf DaleKramer ( talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
DaleKramer you added a comment to the sentence "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" with the comment "Unsupported claim. The fully researched claim should be quoted from the Canada Post Details magazine reference". As far as I can see the Kitplanes Magazine is a reliable source. It is not clear what your issue is - are you saying that the statement it not true and more of another type has been built? The Canadian Details magazine only says there is more Lazairs registered than any other basic ultralights which doesnt appear to be related to the most built Canadian aircraft. Perhaps you can explain what your issue is with the current statement and/or reference, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
(Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them below:)
Until someone presents the text of the KitPlanes Magazine article, it can only be conjecture that the statement in question is true and that it comes from evidence of a reliable source. I have not found the articles on the internet. Ahunt should have a copy, as authors usually keep copies of magazines that their articles are in, but he does not care to post images of his magazine articles for us. Do you have a copy of that article? I will have a copy of his 3 KitPlane articles, that are referenced in the Lazair article, in a few days. I will take pictures of the articles, post them and comment on their validity.
I personally know of the extensive and critical research that Canada Post did over a 1 year period and that they would have said "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" if they could have verified that information. That is why, their wording should be quoted, if any, in that section.
And, ultimately, since the Lazair was manufactured by my private companies, there is nobody on this earth that has direct knowledge of how many Lazair kits were built, other than me or people who were close to me. I CAN tell you that the 2000 figure is incorrect but since the relevant company records are gone, my best guess is between 1000 and 1200. I have never seen a report on as to whether there are any other Canadian manufactured aircraft series had more built than the Lazair had...
Lets wait and see how well the Hunt articles support that claim... (Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them) DaleKramer ( talk) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ultraflight Lazair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There are some reports that a late variant was used as the basis for the airplane in the film "The God's must be crazy II". Can anyone confirm this? Thanks -- Avimimus ( talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This website [1] seems to think so. From the photos that I have seen it looks like it was a Lazair II with full enclosure. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC) . I am Dale Kramer, the Lazair designer. There are definitely Lazair parts used in its construction but it was HIGHLY modified and my factory never sold an enclosure for the two place. I do not want my name associated with such an ugly cockpit enclosure ;) DaleKramer ( talk) 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Any other editors who have soloed a Lazair can put this box on their user page, if they so desire. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Code | Result | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
|{{ User:Ahunt/Lazair}} |
|
Usage |
Hello ahunt, I have watched the Lazair Wikipedia entry over the years and wondered who was doing such a good job with it and I think it was you ;). As you have seen, I have just recently decided to contribute to the page and have made some changes that were on my ToDo list and I have finally gotten to them... DaleKramer ( talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In principle I agree with that and I will stop now, undo what you want and I will leave it incorrect until I may decide to battle it out here to have it corrected ... which is also not good for history if I do not choose to come back in order to battle for correctness ... DaleKramer ( talk) 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with references [1], [2], [5] and [10], could you provide me with links to the document/s?
How bizarre is it that, it appears to me, current citations in this article are linking to documents from people who may have misquoted me or have incorrect facts in them...
Some References do not even take you to the supposed source that verifies their appropriate statements in the article.
The statement that the Lazair was a contraction of "Lazy-Air" did come from me and has been quoted may times over the last 40 years. The people propagating that 'simple' single reason, simply ignored the other two reasons I told them at the time (I have always told people all 3 reasons). The single reason cited is only a partial answer to that question, how bizarre is it that I now have to get a source other than me to fully explain where the the name Lazair came from....
I won't go much further here to get the correct facts out there in this article.
I think a lot of the recently added 'Citation needed' labels should be removed.
Please whittle your 'Citation needed' list down to something reasonable before I start having a plethora of 'Citations needed' labels added.
Why do I need a citation to correct the name of the Manufacturer/s of the Lazair when the manufacturer that was originally there, was factually incorrect? The factually incorrect manufacturer is what needs the 'Citation needed' flag.
There has to be some reasonableness to adding 'Citation needed' labels....
I also, disagree with your continued removal of anything that highlights the 'Noteworthy Accolades' of the Lazair, which have hard verifiable links to sources in their References, as opposed to References that have no links attached or which are written by the person citing the Reference.
I have not had the patience to even fully review all of the numerous 'Citations needed' which you placed on my edits, but the above are a few of my replies.
One thing for sure, I will view the validity of ALL Wikipedia articles with much more skeptical eyes in the future....
I am on my patience limit with trying to have the errors that existed in the page corrected... DaleKramer ( talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, be prepared for a lot of 'Citations needed' placed on existing text of the article, prior to my edits.
I will begin a search for Wikipedia articles that separate a list of 'Noteworthy Accolades' for the subject of the article, my memory tells me that I have seen many articles like that.
Having the Lazair honoured with a stamp, is not an 'Operational History' entry...
There are still no documents that come up when References 1,2,5 an 10 are clicked... DaleKramer ( talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I hope I will still be allowed to ad my 'Citation needed' flags on content that has no valid reference under the same rules as are being applied to my edits. I believe that when a COI is the most reliable source of information on an article topic, then that should be allowed to stand unless there is proof that the statements are not true. To have any other way of obtaining the most reliable information on an articles topic would be a disservice to history. I have strong opinions on that and I am surprised that such a hard stance is being taken with me. The COI policy document does not forbid COI involvement, I think I am that special case... You are going to get me to giveup trying to get the truth out there, is that what you want. Right now if I do not provide sources other than my word for all the nit picky facts that were 'Citation needed' flagged, then the correct history will revert to the incorrect history, just because someone randomly said it was true and in fact it is not true... That will be a sad day... (Sorry, I forgot to sign this edit at the time of the edit, I have signed it late, so that it would not appear that I was trying to make an anonymous comment...) DaleKramer ( talk) 14:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, with regard to a category similar to 'Noteworthy Accolades', please see the 'Awards and honors' section for the Glenn Curtiss Wikipedia article. (I am sure there are many more...)
DaleKramer (
talk)
23:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, how does the fact that there are 5 unlinked references (the numbers have just changed but they are all authored by 'Hunt, Adam') which are 'magazine articles' and apparently not available for scrutiny, change the fact that, without the actual article, there is no way to make sure that it is a good reference that backs up the statements which reference them? DaleKramer ( talk) 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not an 'evil politician' or the like and I stand by my integrity and public reputation, again, I should be the exception to COI here... Personally, I don't see why you couldn't let the evil politician rant here, I am sure that instantly, provable references would surface that would end up removing any incorrect statements from his public rant... That is better than having incorrect statements stand for years or maybe even forever if I give up trying to correct them here... I will try to withhold further comment here until Steelpillow has had a chance to clean up the article... DaleKramer ( talk) 23:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok I give up now, I am the designer of the Lazair series of ultralight aircraft that were manufactured by my companies, UltraFlight Incorporated and UltraFlight Manufacturing Ltd.
You can only find that FACT and MANY others in the edit history of the article (unless they disappear in the future), in edits that I once made to the page and that were undone.
The 'truth', as presented by Wikipedia, would certainly be changed to my version, if the legal system were to have a look here.
For instance, a lot of the current errors in the article would be viewed as hearsay due to the fact that the article claims that Dale Kramer did this or that, because of something...
When I speak about the complete reasons for which I did something, it would NOT be considered hearsay...
When I say the Lazair kit price was $2,495 US in 1979, that information should stand unless someone else shows overwhelming evidence that it is incorrect...
Why does the currently listed price of USD $4600 (1983) stand without a 'citation needed' tag, or just removed the way my addition to that price (USD $2495 (1979)) was simply removed ?
I am not going to battle any further here to have all the errors corrected...
Someday I will put the truth out there on a webpage that I (or my ancestors) control.... DaleKramer ( talk) 13:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think you are getting my point, I do not care about Wikipedia sacred policies, they are stopping the untruth from being corrected here..
Sadly, the original (incorrect) posted data will remain the truth because I will NOT jump through hoops to correct it.
Where were the hoops when the incorrect info was published...
Where are the 5 documents authored by 'Hunt, Adam' (currently cited 22 times out of the 52 reference citings in the article) which seem to know more than I do about the Lazair? I need to peruse them for accuracy...
So many articles have been written over the years where much of their content came from interviews with me. Fortunately most of them published a correct interpretation of what I said, but a few did not. Wikipedia seems to take articles as gospel, such a shame...
My memory should be enough, over having some British registration document error, where neither their government, nor the registrant had any interest in confirming the legal name of the manufacturer... If hard evidence comes to light which proves my memory is faulty, then and only then should you flag it 'citation needed', notify me by email of the 'citation needed' flag and then give me a chance to prove it or delete it after the standard appropriate time period.
So, I will not provide anything more than my memory here, which I have already provided and those memory edits have been removed.
They should not have been removed unless/until someone cites HARD evidence, not like that weak British document, that my memory failed me.
At that point I will gladly be the person to undo my comment...
A note at the top of the article such that there are 'from memory' statements from the 'father' of the articles subject should be enough... and that note would give the conspiracists even more energy to find that hard evidence to counter my memory...
With regard to replacing 'Ultraflight Lazair' in the name with 'UltraFlight Lazair', again a questionable Wikipedia policy will lead to most/some people seeing that word as 'ultralight' (without the f) which is precisely why we capitalize the F in the first place (more often we capitalized the whole word to ULTRAFLIGHT, where again, it is easier to distinguish the 'F'). If you chose to stay within that title policy, please just remove the word Ultraflight from the title...
Why was MAX capitalized in the 'Boeing 737 MAX' article? That is justification to me that 'UltraFlight Lazair' should be used here...
I am sure you know the answer to this so, could you save me some research time by answering this simple question, is there a way for me to receive email notifications of when someone places a 'citation needed' flag on some text I have changed/added to an article? DaleKramer ( talk) 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Steelpillow, I have chosen to add just one 'Citation needed' flag (not sure why the syntax did not work...). If I were to add flags for the rest of the article, or remove text as my text has been removed, under the same rules that were used for how my text was treated, there would not be much left, so that is where I will stop.
I can however see that you truly wish to have the truth published and applaud some of your edits. If people ever want to see the text that is in question here, I hope that they will always be able to search through the articles edit history for edits under my name.
I have set up my preferences as you so graciously suggested and I will be 'low effort lurking' out there to see whether something bothers me enough again to come back... Thanks for your sincere effort to work within your guidelines in order to address my concerns, sadly it did not fully succeed...
P.S. Please fix the link that has been broken which links to a hi-res image of the stamp, currently Reference [3]...
AND, I am still quite hurt by the fact that I am not considered a reliable source for information that originated from me or that can only be verified by me (as noted in the many 'Citation need' flags that still exist on the few of my edits that still remain)... DaleKramer ( talk) 20:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
AND, just because it was so easy to find this, I have decided to post a link to it. So do with the article which I wrote in it, what you think best... https://www.wgc.mb.ca/static/freeflight/04_04.pdf DaleKramer ( talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
DaleKramer you added a comment to the sentence "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" with the comment "Unsupported claim. The fully researched claim should be quoted from the Canada Post Details magazine reference". As far as I can see the Kitplanes Magazine is a reliable source. It is not clear what your issue is - are you saying that the statement it not true and more of another type has been built? The Canadian Details magazine only says there is more Lazairs registered than any other basic ultralights which doesnt appear to be related to the most built Canadian aircraft. Perhaps you can explain what your issue is with the current statement and/or reference, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
(Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them below:)
Until someone presents the text of the KitPlanes Magazine article, it can only be conjecture that the statement in question is true and that it comes from evidence of a reliable source. I have not found the articles on the internet. Ahunt should have a copy, as authors usually keep copies of magazines that their articles are in, but he does not care to post images of his magazine articles for us. Do you have a copy of that article? I will have a copy of his 3 KitPlane articles, that are referenced in the Lazair article, in a few days. I will take pictures of the articles, post them and comment on their validity.
I personally know of the extensive and critical research that Canada Post did over a 1 year period and that they would have said "More Lazairs have been built than any other type of Canadian aircraft" if they could have verified that information. That is why, their wording should be quoted, if any, in that section.
And, ultimately, since the Lazair was manufactured by my private companies, there is nobody on this earth that has direct knowledge of how many Lazair kits were built, other than me or people who were close to me. I CAN tell you that the 2000 figure is incorrect but since the relevant company records are gone, my best guess is between 1000 and 1200. I have never seen a report on as to whether there are any other Canadian manufactured aircraft series had more built than the Lazair had...
Lets wait and see how well the Hunt articles support that claim... (Sorry, until I figure out how to indent my comments, I just italicized them) DaleKramer ( talk) 22:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)