Talk:Flying car

Proposed merge of Passenger drone into Flying car

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given that these are sufficiently distinct topics warranting separate discussion. Klbrain (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Evident duplicate article under an obscure synonym; also overlaps heavily with Air taxi. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 Both terms are not obscure synonyms. A flying car is intended for use both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft, whereas most passenger drones are not intended for road operations, but nonetheless serve a similar purpose to road taxis. Passenger drone does need a lot of work, but I don't think merging it with this article is the right move. Furthermore, while many sources do refer to passenger drones as "air taxis", the Air taxi article covers an entirely separate topic of the same name regarding a type of service provided by some small airlines, so merging with that article would not be right either. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead in that case, since it failed to properly define the topic. It is still very essay-like. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

AGAINST and WP:SNOW. Per ZLEA. A flying car doubles as a road vehicle, a passenger drone does not. Passenger drones are more a part of the autonomous air vehicle/personal air vehicle crossover space, you might find a better merge target in there somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Per above comments, as defined in their respective articles these are two different concepts, making a merge inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conceptual misunderstanding

The concept of a flying car is in NO WAY a roadable aircraft. In fact it is not supposed to drive. It is a car which flies INSTEAD of drives, as predicted by Gyro Gearloose and the Jetsons, not to mention science fiction in general. It should be something which directly can replace a car as a general commuter vehicle, but which flies instead of drives. It should take of from your house and fly directly to your work. It requires a completely new kind of technology to work, and we do not have this technology at all. Having an actual car stupidly suspended from a wing is not a flying car, other than there's a car and it is indeed flying, but is an aircraft with a car attached to it. 217.74.144.6 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What recommendations do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, what reliable sources do you have to support your narrow use of the English language? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You have to understand that there is a reason it's called science fiction. While science fiction may have predicted certain technologies that have made their way into reality, the current accepted definition of "flying car" is a vehicle that is capable of both flight and driving on a road. That is how most reliable sources define it. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The conceptual misunderstanding that is being proposed is quite frankly referring to an urban plane and is in no way a flying car. To disprove that misunderstanding the supplied article confirms the types of flying taxis and vehicles that help inspire the further development of truly flying cars and supplies designs and the current development of hybrid vehicles that fly and drive with proper folding capacity. While it still remains to be science fiction currently, with proper development and funding flying cars is not an impossibility. --MordredPhantom

Contradictory info

Under design, the first paragraph says "able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls". Then in a lower sub-heading, it says "The person controlling the vehicle must also be licensed as both driver and pilot". Which is it?

It's important to read the first sentence in context. "For mass adoption, it will also need to be ... able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls." That doesn't mean that all flying cars are capable of flying without a qualified pilot, just that it would not be feasible for a flying car available for mass adoption to require a qualified pilot. Most, if not all flying cars built to this day were either prototypes or were produced in limited numbers partially for that reason. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If I may suggest: Rewording would be helpful. As written, the text certainly implies machines that are self-flying. How about: "For mass adoption, it will also need to be environmentally friendly, flown by a person who is not a fully qualified pilot and have an affordable price and operating costs." DonFB (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the current sentence is appropriate. Instead of changing it, I inserted a sentence on the current state of play. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It remains ambiguous. Is the phrase "without a fully qualified pilot at the controls" supposed to mean that mass adoption can happen only if the vehicle can fly without anyone at the controls, or that a non-qualified person will be allowed to fly it? Or both? DonFB (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Both - and any other variations we might not have thought of. We have no idea how it might pan out, so the less we confuse ourselves about it all the better. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"...it would also need to be environmentally friendly, able to fly with or without a fully qualified pilot at the controls...." avoiding the suggestion that all mass-adopted machines will fly with no one at the controls. Or, consider: "...able to fly autonomously or with a person at the controls who is not a fully qualified pilot...." DonFB (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with whatever phrasing is used, provided it is grammatical and does not rule out any options. Whatever floats your boat (or flies your car!) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Whitehead

What is the point in giving column inches to the Whitehead claims of flight here? We should be focusing on his machines' intended role as flying cars, it's more than enough enough to note in passing that such claims rumble on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence that Whitehead's machine had any intended function as a functionally roadworthy 'flying car' is non-existent. It was nothing more than a vague analogous term given to something that at the time had no established name at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is strong enough for you to restore material about him in the article on the Flying car. A strange thing to do if you believe there is no evidence for the inclusion of that material here. I would refer you to, e.g., Weissenborn, G.K.; "Did Whitehead fly?", Air Enthusiast thirty-five, Pilot (1988), pp. 19–21, 74–77. This and other RS are clear that W was trying to invent a flying car. Eyewitnesses attest that he drove down the street in some of his machines, with the wings furled. So I have no idea where you get that "non-existent" idea from (it has been forcefully promoted for the flight claims but not for the flying car claims). But the point at issue is that the "did he fly?" controversy is covered elsewhere and the last thing we need here is to repeat that material. You know: Flight - NO!, Flying car - in his dreams! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, maybe we should sort this out once and for all, and determine whether this whatever-it-was belongs in a list of 'flying cars' at all, given that no serious aviation historian of note attaches any credence to the testimony of 'eyewitnesses' reported in sensationalist press reports, or to any of the other supposed evidence for Whitehead's claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

First, my bad: I checked Weissenborn and he does not mention the flying car angle after all. But equally, who gives a toss about people who can't be arsed to debunk, or even mention, the flying car angle, even if they are "serious aviation historians". Jackson, in his notorious Jane's editorial, references John Brown as his source for the roadable aircraft angle and writes, "not having deduced that invention of the practical aeroplane would be followed in short order by ‘invention’ of the aerodrome and hangar, Whitehead was one of the first to provide it with the autonomy which he believed would be demanded by the private owner. That meant an aeroplane which could be kept in the garage of a town house, then make its own way — with a power drive to the landing wheels and with wings folded or dismantled — along the highway to a convenient meadow or park for take-off. Were this to be a businessman making a call, he would undertake a similar road journey on arriving by air at a suitable field in the vicinity of his customer.. Whitehead equipped his aircraft No. 21, known as the Condor, with two acetylene-fuelled engines of his own design: 10 hp for the road wheels and 20 hp as the main source of forward flight. ‘Main’ because at an appropriate moment during take-off, the flick of a lever would transfer the road engine's output to augment the motor driving the twin propellers." Meanwhile, O'Dwyer has published (through Flight Journal), several photos of the putative ground engine. Now, Jackson is not deemed reliable in his opinion that the thing flew, but nevertheless he was Jane's managing editor and is regarded as reliable - a "serious aviation historian" even - in everything else. Is he reliable as a tertiary source for this? Would Brown be reliable if I could track him down? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

In order to qualify as a 'flying car', something clearly needs at absolute minimum to meet two criteria: to fly, and to function as a 'car'. There clearly isn't support from WP:RS for the former, making the latter entirely moot even if it could be shown to be true, per similar sources. Which, in my opinion, it hasn't. Even if Jackson is RS, he appears only to be so in as much as he is reporting what Brown wrote, which is a statement regarding Whitehead's 'beliefs' as to what intended owners wanted. The actual evidence that Machine No 21 ever demonstrated any practical road-going capabilities is scant, to say the least, and beside the point for the purpose of a list of things capable of flight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask this question first. At what point does an aircraft become an aircraft? During the design phase? During construction? Or perhaps when it makes its first flight? Similarly, at what point does a car become a car?

I suppose different people might give different answers, but reliable sources tend to refer to unbuilt or unflown designs for flying machines as "aircraft". We even have an entire category dedicated to unflown aircraft, which the Whitehead No. 21 article currently falls under. The list section in this article is not "List of flying cars that flew", it's "List of flying cars". Even if we remove the Whitehead No. 21 from the list on the grounds that it never flew, we would still have five unflown, and seven unbuilt (three canceled and four in development) flying cars on the list.

That said, I am not sure how reliable sources treat unbuilt or undriven car designs. If they refer to such designs as "cars" or similar, then the Whitehead No. 21 checks all the boxes to be considered a flying car. If they don't, then most of the unflown and all of the unbuilt flying car designs should be excluded from the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see little point in regurgitating the same arguments we had between us a few years back: [1] Possibly an RfC is the solution. Meanwhile, a question, do any modern RS sources actually describe Whitehead's machine as a 'flying car', as opposed to noting that the label was used in earlier sources? This isn't a trivial point, since meanings of words change over time, and in particular, with regard to aviation, agreed terminology simply didn't exist when Whitehead built the No 21. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd support the removal of the Whitehead No. 21 from this list if no such sources can be found. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

ZLEA makes some good points. Many of our aircraft articles and lists cover projects which never flew, that is no argument against inclusion. What matters is not what we editors think but what RS verifiably call a flying car - or, let us not forget, a roadable aircraft. AndyTheGrump is also wrong to demand primary sources. WP:RSPRIMARY makes it clear that secondary and reputable tertiary sources are preferred, while primary sources must be used with caution. Jackson is just such a reputable tertiary source. He makes a distinction between flying cars and roadable aircraft, explicitly describing the No. 21 as the latter. But we at present do not make that distinction and Roadable aircraft redirects to Flying car. So prima facie we have an RS to cite. But that editorial piece is controversial in other ways, so this is why I am asking, is he a good enough source to keep this machine in the article? If not, why not? Should we be seeking out Brown, who was Jackson's principal secondary source? (Another thing to bear in mind is that Andy is now attacking the very material he restored after I cut it back, so his words and actions contradict each other). I'd be happy to settle on ZLEA's arbitration on this, I doubt we will get any better consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm demanding primary sources? I have just pointed out why primary sources - those from Whiteheads time - didn't have the terminology to describe things, and accordingly why we need to be wary of interpreting phrases from 120 years ago as having the modern meaning. What I am asking for are sources from credible modern aviation historians for the 'flying car' description. Not second-hand Jackson-says-that-Brown-says stuff from an editorial subsequently disowned by the publisher. As for 'ZLEA's arbitration', Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

After I had quoted the tertiary source which is quite explicit, you responded "The actual evidence that Machine No 21 ever demonstrated any practical road-going capabilities is scant,..." which I took to mean you wanted to see that primary evidence. But to get back on topic, I still don't understand why you prefer a big wad of the material you hate rather than a cut-down version. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As I made clear in the discussion back in 2022 (linked above), and as I have reiterated here, I don't think that Whitehead's machine belongs on the list at all. I reverted your recent change because it replaced sourced content regarding the actual opinion of historians with a vague unsourced statement. That was not an improvement. I then amended the section further, given that it was still making vague claims about 'some historians'. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect academic/historical mainstream consensus, which is clear regarding Whitehead, rather than implying there is any serious debate amongst such sources about the matter.

As I said earlier, I see no point on the few of us going over this ground again. I'll give it a day or two in case anyone else has comments, and if nothing new comes up, I'll start an RfC on whether Whitehead's non-flying 'car' belongs in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of sources that describe Whitehead's machine as a "car" or "automobile" or "flying car" or "roadable" aircraft or anything similar, so I agree with Andy's skeptical view in asking, "do any modern RS sources actually describe Whitehead's machine as a 'flying car'...?" The article itself does not use any such terminology about the Whitehead machine, nor do the sources for that paragraph. Without any such source, we don't have justification for including the Whitehead text. (My interpretation is that the powered wheels were intended only as a means of gaining takeoff speed, and not intended as a means of locomotion as a roadable vehicle.) DonFB (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides the concrete example I gave above in my quote from Jackson, here are three more:

• A transcript of the Bridgeport Herald piece on wright-brothers.org gives an extensive description of its roadgoing capabilities.
• In O'Dwyer's account for Flight Journal (see above), I have now found that one caption does note; "He drove his machine along the road with the wings and tail folded, and then he used that engine to assist in overcoming ground drag during the takeoff roll."
• Glass, Andrew; Flying Cars: The True Story, Clarion, 2015. ISBN-10 0618984828, ISBN-13 978-0618984824. Chapter 2 is titled "Gustave Whitehead's Condor" and gives much detail of the No.21, before remarking that "Despite controversy, the chronicle of Gustave Whitehead's flying automobile..."

The majority of mainstream historians, to my knowledge, have never been concerned with, let alone actively questioned, its intended goal as a roadable aircraft/flying car. Anybody got any explicit counter-examples to that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As Steelpillow is well aware, the Bridgeport Herald piece has been rejected as a reliable source by multiple analysists, for good reason. A quotation from an article in The Aviation Historian, July 2013, [2] lays out why:

"When considering primary source material, it can be vital to examine it in context, not just in isolation. In the case of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, such an approach is illuminating. The story above, referred to in this article, appeared on page 5 of the August 18, 1901 edition. Research in the paper’s archives shows that the “page 5 story” was often sensational and, as early-aviation historian Nick Engler says, “walked the line between fact and fancy”. Five weeks earlier the page 5 slot was home to The Dog Man of Windham, [illustrated] BELOW, a story about a Yeti or Bigfoot seen in Connecticut’s woods. Other stories that summer described The Great White Shark of the Lexington Wreck, which attacked divers searching for treasure in a sunken ship, and, just a week after the Flying story, The Woodbury Kleptomania, about a woman who stole rare plants and chickens."

As far as I am aware, no other primary source beyond this sensationalist journalism, and its subsequent republication in similar newspapers, has been located regarding the supposed roadgoing capabilities of Whitehead's machine No. 21. O'Dwyer repeats it, because he takes the newspaper report at face value. Without this source, there is nothing to discuss regarding the machine's capabilities as a 'car', making it unsurprising that aviation historians have failed to comment on it. Not that they would be likely to concern themselves with the question anyway, since internal-combustion-engined non-flying vehicles were hardly new in 1901.

WP:FRINGE policy is clear enough regarding the appropriate place for the discussion of fringe topics: only in articles on the topics themselves, and only where such topics meet Wikipedia notability criteria. The inclusion of the Whitehead machine as a 'flying car' in this article is based solely on taking at face value the claims of Whitehead proponents originally sourced to a newspaper that ran stories on Bigfoot and 'dog men'. Attempting to do an end-run around Wikipedia policies on sourcing, NPOV etc by taking the failure of mainstream sources to comment on a minor aspect of the story as justification to include it is entirely untenable. We base content on reliable sources, and don't use the lack of them to shoehorn in material from unreliable ones. That is getting core policy entirely backwards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, most of that. But as our [Andy] is in turn well aware, the only fringe aspect of the No. 21 is whether it flew. Everything else about it is subject only to WP:NOTABILITY and suchlike. And that is what these sources help to establish, which is what concerns DonFB - as so it should. (I would also note that to query "Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm demanding primary sources?" and a post or two later to complain about "no other primary source" does lead one to question the rationality of Andy's arguments generally.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Statements regarding the No. 21's alleged roadgoing capabilities must, per Wikipedia policy, be cited to reliable sources. The only sources you have offered up are unreliable - they are promoting fringe claims explicitly rejected by a clear consensus of aviation historians of repute. Unreliable sources are unreliable. They don't suddenly become cherry-pickable for 'reliable' content just because nobody has bothered to dispute those particular obscure and irrelevant details. If the only sources you are going to offer up to support the inclusion of Whitehead on the list are these policy-excluded sources, I can see little point in even bothering with an RfC, since local RfCs cannot overrule core Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose the text be revised and shortened and accompanied by a citation to the Andrew Glass book, (already cited in the article) as follows:

"In 1901 German immigrant to the U.S. Gustave Whitehead purportedly flew a powered aircraft, which was described as able to propel itself along roads to the site of the flying experiment. [citation to Andrew Glass book]. Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight.[footnotes 1,3,4]"

Without any sourcing which describes the machine as a "flying car" (or similar), the text is subject to challenge and removal. DonFB (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have just removed the text and list entry concerning Whitehead, as lacking reliable sourcing. Apologies if this seems premature as if I'd seen your post I would have responded before editing the article. As for Glass, 'described as' seems rather vague, and without seeing the broader context, it is hard to see whether this particular quote justifies inclusion. Also, do we know anything about Glass's qualifications and/or publishing history? Has his book been subject to reviews etc? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Glass, I further note that Amazon's page on him [3] describes the book as 'Juvenile Nonfiction' - a less than ideal source, I'd have to suggest. The description will almost certainly have come from Glass himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I also took note that the Glass book is for youngsters; I don't know if the book can be considered a RS. The text I suggested relies on the original Herald article (and derivatives) for "described as", but I also included the Glass citation as explicit support for "flying car". DonFB (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, the Herald certainly described the No. 21 as having roadgoing capabilities: In a section of the newspaper it used in other editions for tales about Bigfoot, dog men, man-eating sharks and kleptomaniac chicken-thieves. An unreliable source can't be cited to justify inclusion of content not supported by reliable ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal by DonFB. However the idea that only the debunkers can ever be cited is quite false. In many articles on pseudoscience, hoaxes and other rubbish, unreliable sources are indeed cited if their rubbish is notable. Same applies to rubbish aircraft, such as the Boeing 797 hoax - and the Whitehead No. 21. Checkout all the photos of the ground engine in Flight Journal and ask yourself if they are reliable evidence for the intention to use it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a photograph of Whitehead holding an unidentifiable mechanism isn't 'reliable evidence' for the roadgoing capabilities of his machine. What an utterly absurd suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

See this post from @ZLEA:, back in that old discussion which you are - understandably - reluctant to have us revisit. There is clear consensus here now, as there was back then, to include some mention of the No.21, based on sufficient RS to verify its significance. Or, as others have said before me, take it upstairs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such consensus here, quite clearly. People can count. And they can read ZELA's comment of 18th August above. As for 'taking it upstairs', could you please clarify what you mean? An RfC is an option, though as of right now it isn't clear what the question is, since people have made different suggestions. Or if you are prepared to actually put forward specific sources which you wish to cite to justify the No 21 in this article, we can discuss them at WP:RSN. As of right now though, you still seem to be arguing that the material should be included, while failing to actually say which sources should support it. No challenged content can be included without citations. Content cannot be cited to unreliable sources. If you want to include content provide specify the text you are proposing. Provide the necessary citations. Then we can discuss how to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Back in that old discussion, ZLEA took the view that:

Disregarding the obvious Whitehead fan site, the HuffPost source states that "[Whitehead] purportedly took aloft a flying car of his own design". A source used earlier in the article, the December 1981 Popular Mechanics, states that "[Stanley Y.] Beech described the plane as self-powered on the ground, like an automobile" and later explicitly describes the aircraft as a "flying automobile" (here it is on Internet Archive).[4]

Both HuffPost (see WP:HUFFPO) and Popular Mechanics are considered reliable sources. It doesn't matter that they "appear to be a precis of earlier material". Both sources apparently did not see a reason to refute the title of "flying car", while they did choose not to endorse the claims that it actually flew. If you still don't believe the sources to be reliable in this case, feel free to bring it up at WP:RS/N.[5]

The consensus outcome of that episode was that mention of the No.21 was retained.

So the consensus outcome appears to be to go with the form of words proposed by DonFB, supported by both sets of cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to concoct 'consensus' out of comments made a couple of years ago on two sources, cobbled together with an ongoing discussion of another source entirely where the validity of the source (Glass) is being questioned as being from Juvenile Nonfiction'. And why are you insisting that I bring the sources up at WP:RSN, since it is you that is proposing to cite them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten about those. This satisfies my August 18 comment, unless anyone has a legitimate and sensible reason to ignore these two reliable sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I made my objections to the HuffPost and Popular Mechanics pieces perfectly clear in the earlier inconclusive discussion. [6] And note that I wasn't the only person to question the validity of the sources - see @Shibbolethink:'s comment re the HuffPost. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how the sources fare at WP:RSN, if you're still interested. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

In which case, take it to WP:RSN, citing the sources, and the proposed text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What happened to "I shall certainly bring it up at WP:RSN"? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

We got rather sidetracked by your failed attempts to get me sanctioned at WP:ANI. [7][8] Anyway, I'm not the one proposing the sources be cited. You know where WP:RSN is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be a bit weird if the one to bring it up to RSN is that one who is not questioning the reliability of known reliable sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't wish to use the noticeboard, don't. As of right now, the article correctly makes no mention of Whitehead's non-flying machine, so I'm happy with the status quo, and if people who aren't happy with it won't go through with the necessary processes to seek broader community involvement, that's not my problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, status quo. A formal RfC on the issue would definitely be beneficial. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, the status quo for this discussion is as it was when I opened it - just after I deleted material from the article and Andy restored it. The status quo is not the article state of the moment, as he would have us believe. Per WP:STONEWALLING, it would probably be OK to restore that, so that there is something to tag as under dispute, e.g. with {{under discussion inline}}. The alternative is to change it to DonFB's suggestion, citing appropriate RS (which, again, is clear enough to all but Andy). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)