User talk:Cglassey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello Cglassey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Nlu (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] thanks for your neutrality
I've seen your work. Are you a historian, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Regard. Fad (ix) 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I
 Issue I - March 2006 |
|
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator |
|
|
delivered by Loopy e 04:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II
The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hughes H-1 influence
You are misreading the NASM page and making VERY big leaps of logic. The H-1 was a successful fast radial-engined aircraft. It did not have an influence on the design of the aircraft you mentioned. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree that my comments are "wildly speculative".
- "Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here." UNLV Library Howard Hughes web page.
- "The Hughes H-1 was designed for record-setting purposes, but it also had an impact on the design of high-performance aircraft for years to come... The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-WuIf FW 190. It demonstrated that properly designed radial-engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs despite having larger frontal areas because of their radial engine installations." National Air and Space Museum H-1 Racer
- "This airplane (the H-1), nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters: the Republic P-47, Mitsubishi Zero and Focke-Wulf 190." Curtiss Wright Corporation History
- Jim Wright (who built the replica of the H-1): Wright was intrigued by the H-1 for a variety of reasons. One was the technological aspect of the H-1. It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time. The H-1 had a major impact on aircraft development, and likely influenced such notable aircraft as the P-47, the Zero, and the Focke-Wolfe Fw-190. AVweb
- In my opinion the NASM, the UNLV web site and the Curtis Wright web sites are authoritative. In addition, Jim Wright was an expert on the plane. I believe these sources. user:cglassey
-
-
- All of this is completely speculative (remember, no speculation or original research on Wikipedia). I've heard the Zero claim before but never from a primary source I could cite (I have a copy of the official USAAF analysis of the Zero based on a captured aircraft and it makes no mention of the H-1) -- everything you mentioned is a secondary source and none of them cite any references. Therefore, they are very likely to perpetuate generalizations, myths, and misconceptions. Note that none of your sources say HOW the H-1 influenced these aircraft, only that it did (leading by example perhaps? that's a BIG leap of logic and an ever bigger leap of evidence). This is akin to claiming that the canard-equipped Wright Flyer influenced the Sukhoi Su-30. You need to cite primary sources and show specific details, not broad generalizations. H-1 was not unique -- there were plenty of other streamlined radial-engined designs at the time, particularly those from Lockheed and Northrop, that could make the same sweeping claims of paternity. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
I am not making over-broad generalizations, nor am I doing "original research", nor am I engaged in speculation. Howard Hughes, the National Air and Space Museum, the historian for Curtis Wright company, and others are making these statements. I judge that these people are (a) reputable (b) in a position to know and (c) are acknowledged experts on the subject. The extent of my involvement was to look at the timeline on design and determin that the assertions are plausible. Then I added the comments into the articles. I fail to see how you can assert that a direct statement by Howard Hughes on this topic is not a primary source. He designed and built the H-1. If anyone was in a position to judge if a plane is based on his design, it is Hughes. Even if a designer for the Zero, or the Fw-190, or the P-47 was to assert that they didn't base their design on the H-1, would their statement be considered definative? No. The designers of the Zero and the other planes mentioned have every incentive to magnify their own contribution and minimize the contributions of others. Which is why when asserting one design is based on a previous design, we (the non-experts) rely on informed judgements by experts in the field. I submit that the sources I have quoted fullfill this criteria. user:cglassey
- You are quoting tertiary sources that do not cite references but that make sweeping generalizations. The kind of writing on the NASM or Wright page would get reverted in a flash on Wikipedia due to sweeping unreferenced statements. How can you call them "reputable" and "experts" if you don't even know the authors of the writings. Hughes makes a vague statement to the tune of "my airplane was copied by the Japanese" but presents no evidence. Therefore, absolutely the only way to present it is as "Howard Hughes claimed that the Zero was copied from his H-1 racer" (reference).
- Regardless, neither you nor the sources you cite explain HOW the H-1 influenced the P-47 and the Fw 190. Burden of proof on Wikipedia always lies with the editor adding the material (that is, with you in this case). Your proof is two unreferenced tertiary sources making broad generalizations. Your evidence presents no support whatsoever for the claims they make.
- For example, I can state that Sud Caravelle had influence on DC-9, Tu-134, and Boeing 727. I can support this claim with evidence that the Caravelle was the first airliner to use rear-mounted engines. It proved the scheme to be workable (there were Cg concerns) and demonstrated a considerably quieter and vibration-free passenger cabin. The DC-9 and B-727 were early implementations of the same layout. When a Soviet leader flew on the Caravelle, he was so impressed he ordered Tupolev to build an airliner with the same engine configuration, which became the Tu-134. Compare this with the totally unexplained claims in your "expert" references. Essentially, you have to show that the H-1 pioneered some sort of innovation that was directly adopted by other designs. And you cannot show that because the H-1 was only a well-done implementation of existing concepts. Another example: the P-43 Lancer did not lead up to P-47 because of timeline or similar looks/layout. Rather, it was a radial-engined fighter with a mid-fuselage mounted turbosupercharger. The system was refined on the P-47. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Quote from the Wikipedia on sources: A primary source is any piece of information that was created at the time being studied, by the people being studied...oral interviews with participants taken years later are considered primary sources Primary source. Howard Hughes, offering an opinion about about his plane, the H-1, and its role in aviation history, in 1954, is a primary source. Not a tertiary source. Howard Hughes, as the designer, does not have to offer any support for his opinion. He is an expert on the topic and is capable of rendering an opinion on it which carries real weight for historians. The NASM is an athoritative source on the airplanes in its collection. Period. If you don't accept this statement then we have nothing more to talk about. I don't have to know who wrote the statements about the H-1 on the NASM web site because the statements are backed by the full historical weight of the NASM. "A secondary source is a historical work built up from primary sources." What is on the NASM web site is a secondary source, not a tertiary source. To quote from the article on primary sources: "A primary source is not, by default, more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source." The article on the Curtis Wright web site is by William Wraga, an historian for the Curtis Wright company who has writen a number of historical articles. He is a reputable historian of aviation, his work was citied in an official government publication on the history of aviation. He is not a tertiary source. So, will you cease this attack on my sources as "tertiary sources"? They are, as I assert, reputable and valid sources - both primary and secondary - for opinions about the relationship between the Hughes H-1 Racer and subsequent war planes of WWII. In my opinion, I have fully satisfied the burden of proof for including the statements I listed in the articles. Now, its your turn. What experts do you have which support your contention that the H-1 Racer was not copied by the later planes? I've got experts that say it was, what primary or secondary sources do you have that says this is not true? What is your well sourced arguement for keeping this out of the articles? user:cglassey
-
I think I've already established the appropriate citation of the Hughes interview. An opinion of an eccentric designer (or any person for that matter) must be presented as their opinion, not fact. Especially because there is no evidence presented anywhere (or even suggested) that Hughes himself had examined the captured Zero. "It was obvious to everyone" is a weasel phrase. The USAAF report makes no mention of H-1 similarities.
As for the other two references, neither of them says that the H-1 was copied (YOUR words) by subsequent aircraft.
- NASM: major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters
- Wright: This airplane, nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters
YOU took these two passing statements and blew them up into a paragraph about H-1 being copied by Kartveli, Tank, and Mitsubishi. In fact, the Hughes racer did NOTHING innovative. It was simply a good execution of the concepts already implemented elsewhere (a 1930s F-4 Phantom II, if you will). Lockheed Vega had the NACA-cowled radial engine in 1926. Lockheed Orion had all the same aerodynamic refinements as the H-1 in 1931 -- four years prior. Both articles are guilty of editorializing -- they are not written from a neutral point of view and present a very H-1 -centric depiction of history at the expense of accuracy. Considering that the H-1 never left United States, I want to see evidence that Tank and Mitsubishi even knew that it existed or had ever seen it in enough detail to grasp its construction specifics.
And again, regardless of the presumed level of expertise of the authors, neither of the articles is verifiable because neither cites its sources. That makes for secondary/tertiary sources of dubious accuracy. Nowhere in the professional world does being an expert exempt one from citing the sources.
To further discredit your sources, I quote: It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time.
In 1935, USAAC was flying P-26 monoplanes and in 1936 the all-metal Seversky P-35 and Curtiss P-36 with retractable landing gear were put into production. In the same 1935, Luftwaffe was already testing the Bf 109. So much for "expertise," eh?
- Emt147 Burninate! 07:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you really asserting that in 1935 "the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes" is a false statement? Are you really asserting the NASM isn't a reliable source of information about the planes in its collection? Just because the military was flying some planes which were not fabric covered biplanes hardly invalidates the above statement. user:cglassey
- Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources "However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the fact template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding not verified or unsourced at the top of the page." Hmmm? Seems to me my modifications to the articles in question fall in the "not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful" category, yet you deleted them very rapidly...
-
- You do understand the extreme subjectivity of that judgement call, right? My knowledge of aviation history and evolution of aircraft design is sufficiently deep that to me the material was obviously wrong and rather absurd (and derived from questionable sources to boot). To insert incorrect material and then tag it as such does nothing except compromise the integrity of the articles.
-
- Besides that, the burden of proof still lies with the submitting editor. To me, your claims were insufficiently verifiable. Note that no one has bothered to revert my deletion.
-
- Actually the quote above is invalidated. It is an obviously incorrect broad generalization since the military was already flying all-metal monoplane aircraft as well as some fabric biplanes. And yes, museums can be wrong (I work in one, I know). Find some better quality sources than some websites that came up on Google. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Ciuna
Hello! First, please, excuse my poor english, I'm Horatius of it:wiki. I'm (slowly) writing about roman battles and I can't find any info about the battle linked above. Since I read you are interested in Roman battles I wonder if you could please kindly tell me where to find some info? I read all Titus Livius but I didn't find anything about Ciuna for Second Samnite War. Meanwhile I inform you I wrote an article about the Battle of Suessola (end of First Samnite War) if some of you think useful to translate from italian... Vale! Horatius [1]
- Thanks for answering anyway. As far as I know, Livius wrote about a "battle of Cluvia" (a very small one of the Samnite Wars) (IX, 31) I wandered if they were the same battles. Perhaps they aren't. Thanks again. bye! Horatius [2]--151.46.228.91 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006
The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 22:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request
Hey Cglassey,
Could you check the following articles for NPOV and accuracy? Thanks.
- Battle of Van
- Van Reistance
- First Armenian Republic (1915-16)
Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding First Armenian Republic (1915-16); Confederation of Armenian parties, which had a representation in Ottoman parliament, come together and formed a local governing structure in this region. Ottoman documents define it as a revolt coordinated by Armenian confederation. I'm aware the fact that this area was a war zone, as we know from historical perspective and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich was a fact. However, I could easily see an issue regarding the fact that it was really not different than the origination of TBMM. OR if was not crushed, it could have easily replace the democratic republic of Armenia, as the distinction between them was very diffuse (same people, same party, same military power). I do understand your point, and if you could help, there may be a better way to define it. As far as I can say; it may be in very early stages of becoming a state (from ARF perspective), but it has a political and military structure. Thanks. --OttomanReference 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Cglassey, thanks for your reply. I was going to suggest you discuss it with him to work out a compromise. Is there any other option in your mind other than removing the articles? Perhaps making it so all POVs are heard in them? —Khoikhoi 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, those are good suggestions. You should probably say the same thing to OttomanReference on his talk page. BTW, since you're a historian, how strong is the evidence that the Turkish government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide for a short time after WWI? —Khoikhoi 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks again! I have another question - I've heard some people say "historians are still trying to determine what happened from 1915-1918 in the Ottoman Empire"? Is that true? I thought most historians agree that it was a genocide. —Khoikhoi 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Very interesting. Is the evidence that there was a genocide strong? —Khoikhoi 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Hernado De Soto
Why do you keep creating the Hernado De Soto article? This is a misspelled title with nothing linking to it. Hernando De Soto, the correct article, already exists and has similar content. Academic Challenger 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but this disambiguation page has existed for a long time. You created it under a bad title. Academic Challenger 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question on Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
I notice that you were a major contributor to expanding this article; in particular, in expanding the introduction. IIt is currently the Military history WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight.) I have a few questions about his contributions to history — in particular, do you feel that his contribution as a military strategist is more notable that his role as field marshall and/or as chief of staff of the Prussian army? — ERcheck (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kim campbell damage a10.jpg
What type of damage did the A-10 substain? I'm gussing Class B, but the link doesn't say. =) Jumping cheese Contact 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LoTR pages
Take it to Talk:One Ring, please. This shouldn't be just between you and me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
