Talk:Richard Pearse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

When Pearse was writing letters to newspapers he was using a very strict definition of flight - sustained, controlled flight. Pearse did not achieve this to his own demanding standards.

Hence Pearse historians often use the words "powered take-offs" or "tentative flights" instead.

I think that Pearse's letters were an expression of his own dissatisfaction at having gotten close and knowing what might get him further but, frustratingly, not having the resources to do so. Dramatic 11:50 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. He certainly used a motor attached to something like a plane to get off the ground and travel through the air. Ping 07:43 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

While not the greatest fan of 'Richard Pearse made the first flight' claims, I have removed the not verified tag as only one citation needed event was noted, and I have supplied references for this.Winstonwolfe 04:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a child growing up in NZ I recall reading in "The Guinness Book of World Records" that Richard Pearse was the first to achieve powered flight. The "controlled" definition was added to later editions of the book, and first flight credited to the Wright Brothers. If this change in definition can be verified then it might be worth noting in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.133.47 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2010

Comment: The actual name of the book you were probably reading is, "The Guinness Book of Records" not, world records, our Americans plagiarism ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.74.173 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a full length documentary from 1975 about Richard Pearse here: http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/richard-pearse-1975 Please review and if you feel it's suitable you might want to add it into this article. Pukeko138 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I have no doubt Pearse flew and crash landed before the Wright Brothers, but in many ways its even more incredible that he single handedly built his flying machine and motor cycle in a garden shed in the middle of nowhere in NZ, and that included the engines !! Absolutely your typical Kiwi ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.74.173 (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sustained controlled flight" is not a demanding standard invented by Pearse. It is the measure by which inventors had been judging their efforts for almost 50 years. There were many craft that achieved some form of flight, from the 1870's onwards. Pearse did not achieve sustained flight until well after the Wright brothers, if at all.125.236.202.112 (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not born in Cornwell[edit]

Reverted a major error - which had sat unfixed for 6 months! Snori 11:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tēnā Kātuo 

Pizza5153 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the ailerons?[edit]

I do not see ailerons on the picture, were they spoilerons?70.118.142.235 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Circumstantial[edit]

an eyewitness is not circumstantial evidence, it's direct evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of Nov. 2, 1909, Richard Pearse had not performed any flight[edit]

1) "Mr Richard Pearse, son of Mr Diggory Pearse, the well-known farmer, of Waitohi, expects to make the trial flight of his monoplane in a very few days now. He has been working on the airship for a long time, and is confident that he has got over many difficulties. The frame is of bamboo, the wings of strong calico, and the motor is of 24 horse-power. The trial flight will be made from a paddock which is in young wheat, but the direction is not as yet been determined upon." Source, Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 14046, 2 November 1909, Page 5, see: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=THD19091102.2.19&srpos=9&e=-------10--1----0Pearse++Waitohi+flight--

Pearse himself wrote articles of practical work in 1904 and eyewitnesses observed flights in 1902-03. The articles quoted in this section of 'talk' are indirect third party evidence. They are journalists in a faraway town writing about something they heard about on the rumour mill.--Karloss12 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) "A young South Canterbury farmer, who has for some years past been working in secret in an endeavour to perfect a flying machine, considers that he has now nearly reached the goal at which he is aiming. He intends to make a trial flight with his airship at an early date. The framework of the ship is of bamboo, the wings all of calico, and the propelling power is a 24-h.p. motor. The inventor is Mr Richard Pearse, of Waitohi." Source, (a) Press, Volume V, Issue 13570, 3 November 1909, Page 6, see: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=CHP19091103.2.28&srpos=8&e=-------10--1----0Pearse++Waitohi+flight-- (b) Colonist, Volume LII, Issue 12691, 9 November 1909, Page 2, see: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=TC19091109.2.13&srpos=4&e=-------10--1----0Pearse++Waitohi+flight-- (c) Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9067, 10 November 1909, Page 4, see: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=MS19091110.2.21&srpos=3&e=-------10--1----0Pearse++Waitohi+flight-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.80 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearse was being granted patents and getting locals (i.e. eyewitnesses) to help him with flights. This is not secrecy. The journalist is writing as an uninformed third party.--Karloss12 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of speculative and unsubstantiated claims. There is no way Pearse achieved a pre-Wright Brothers flight. He did work on a powered bicycle in 1903, but even the article states that Pearse did not start working on flight until 1904. The reference for the bike is ]http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=THD19030521.2.9&srpos=5&e=--1902---1910--10-THD-1-byDA---0pearce+scott-- Town and Country], Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 12072, 21 May 1903, Page 2.

Pearse states that he started "practical work" in early 2004. Witnesses (i.e. direct evidence) were discussing physical flying equipment as early as 1898, therefore Pearse "started working on flight" many years before 2004. The comment is a mixture of fiction and emotion.--Karloss12 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble archiving links on the article[edit]

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation for invention[edit]

All inventors are motivated by different reasons. The Wrights might well have been considering "industrial development" (whatever that means). But Pearse had his reasons too. I don't think that there is any basis for suggesting that his own lack of interest in industry has "suppressed any recognition of Pearse's achievements". I would suggest that there has been no suppression of recognition, and furthermore that he is now over publicized in New Zealand, usually with false claims as to his "achievements". Speculative and emotive sentences like that last one in the intro should be removed.125.236.202.112 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my previous irrelevant commentKarloss12 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Pearse. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Pearse. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed sections[edit]

Several sections in the article have been created or expanded in recent weeks and now include excessive details and minutia about the weather and various townspeople and farmers and their births and deaths, their crops, and the like. I don't believe those kinds of facts add useful information to the reader's knowledge of the life of Pearse, the pioneer aviator. In addition, some of the new text is referenced to unverifiable or unpublished sources (for example: Biggs, Frank J (25 May 1967). "Now regarding the flight". Letter to Joseph Coll. Taiko, Timaru), which may constitute prohibited original research. I invite comment. My intention is to edit these sections with a goal of more narrowly focusing the text on Pearse and his work, summarizing what is known about him, and trimming away non-essential, distracting, irrelevant or unverifiable fill. Additional policy guidance that applies here is: wp:DUE and wp:PROPORTION. DonFB (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and will also note the additions contain many quotes from primary sources. Repeating these quotes without commentary or evaluation implies they are to be taken at face value, and are therefore presumed factual. This amounts to WP:SYNTH. This is the main reason why using primary sources is discouraged in WP. I agree these should be removed, which likely involves removing the surrounding text in many cases. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there is a lot of completely irrelevant information about the lives of people who witnessed the flights e.g. Wade and Crowley that should be removed. MurielMary (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::: The Wade and Crowley information is the most compelling evidence to demonstrate that Pearse flew multiple laps of a paddock in a seemingly sustained and controlled manner. The Crowley information also provides a date of no later than September 1903. The quotes and information is also taken from reliable secondary sources.--Karloss12 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed the most compelling evidence, something that stands on its own, that's all the more reason to delete these quotes. No one is stating that Wade and Crowley didn't say what is quoted. The issue is they are not authorities. Quoting them is a primary source, regardless of how many other publications also quote them. What they said can be read and interpreted, evaluated, and combined with other evidence by and recognized authority in the field to make a secondary source claim, and that would be worthy of WP. Without this, they remain primary, and using them is opening the door to WP:SYNTH. --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::::: Miss Crowley is not "quoted" at all in the secondary source. It is her employment history (from public council records) which is being used by the secondary source author to date/synthesise the event. —Karloss12 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 August 2020‎ (UTC) [reply]

A lot of work has been put in to make sure the quotes are taken from cited reputable secondary sources. This complies fully with WP rules WP:RS. I don't see any reason for removal of these quotes. I think that the reason that the micro-detail of witness observations is needed is because the article is structured like a "who flew first" competition. The "Flight" section contains all of the direct evidence of Pearse flights before the date of the wright brothers flight, and there is for some reason another seperate section with the condescending heading "debunking the myth", which contains direct evidence of Pearse flights after the Wright bothers flight. I think that all of the content of the "debunking the myth" section should be moved to the "Flight, 1909" section and that the "debunking the myth" section be completely removed. That way all of the direct firsthand evidence of flights between "1902-1904" will be in one section, without having to mention the words "wright brothers". If this were done, then I think the micro-detail could be simplified while continuing to cite the secondary sources.--Karloss12 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, this definitely does not comply with WP:RS, as they are primary sources, per above.
However, I agree that the title and tone of "Debunking the myth" section could use work. Merging it with the firsthand evidence is not the way to do this, as that section, frankly, is wholly unencyclopedic. Once this discussion is complete, I will look into rewording the debunking section, unless someone beats me to it. --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source author has taken the multiple independent witness interviews and publicly available documents of Miss Crowleys employment history (secondary sources) and synthesised them into an account of an event. The article presents this secondary source synthesised information. I can't see how this secondary source material can be presented without including the witness statements. Other high quality aviation articles largely quote primary sources. WP says that Primary sourses are frowned upon, however allowed.
Although there is too much detail of Miss Crowley in the article, if she is removed completely, then the meaning of the secondary source is lost. Like wise, removing Wade, reduces the number of independant witnesses, degrading the true reliability of the article. I think three quarters of the Miss Crowley material can be condensed or removed without degrading the article.—Karloss12 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 30 August 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
I'm following zero of this reasoning. The repeated use of the word "synthesize" seems an admission of violating WP:SYNTH. I'll make it as simple as I can; what specific sources involving Crowley and Wade are being used to assert Pearce flew in 1903? Once identified here, we can go on to evaluate them as a secondary RS. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Secondary RS is "The riddle of Richard Pearse" by Gordon Ogilvie provides the details of Wade and Crowley, as per the article citations. This secondary RS used multiple independent witness statements and public records to synthesise the accounts/dates of the flights.--Karloss12 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you. That source is cited about a dozen times in this article. I don't have access to that book, and welcome comments from anyone that does. But from its intro: Though the Wrights were clearly the first to achieve sustained and controlled powered flight, the question of whether or not Pearse beat them into the air remains an open issue. He was certainly the first citizen in the British Empire to accomplish a powered takeoff in his own aircraft, probably as early as 31 March 1903. Based on this, the book does not claim he made powered flights, only that he made powered takeoffs, with a less-than-certain date. That the book includes these eyewitness accounts, and yet does not conclude a powered flight for Pearse with the earliest date, means they are not sufficient to make a definitive claim of powered flight in the article. Stating those eyewitness claims in this article has no point, unless we are trying to convince readers to make their own deductions based on those eyewitness claims beyond those of the author's, which is in violation of WP:SYNTH. --A D Monroe III(talk) 03:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have ordered and am waiting for the arrival of the book in the next week or so. The author of the source uses the term "tentative flight". I am a bit dubious about some content in the "flight" section. I will be interested to read the full detail of the multiple paddock laps flight when the book arrives. I don't see how the author can say that multiple laps of a paddock over ten minutes isn't a flight when in the Clement Adler article, a 'mythical' 20cm altitude and 50-meter long uncontrolled achievement is referred to as a "flight". And the Wright Brothers 12 second 37-metre achievement (where the pilot could not yet achieve control) is a flight. All of these examples are what I would call tentative flights (i.e. flights). Some historians and Wikipedians use either the Wikipedia definition of flight (which includes ballistic flight), where as others like Pearse and his historians appear to insist that flight strictly means sustained controlled powered flight. What is the WP policy on consistency across articles with subjective terms such as flight? It seems "unfair" to apply the WP meaning to Adler and Wright Brothers articles and the more restricted meaning to Pearse's article. The author's use of the term "tentative flight" may enable WP consistency for the Richard Pearse article without the need for a flight meaning debate. No Pearse historian has claimed that Pearse achieved sustained controlled flight at all, let alone beat the wright brothers to it. I am interested to see any commentary in the book relating to Pearse taking a lead in the pursuit of mastering powered flight. I look forward to receiving the book.--Karloss12 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now reading the book. I'll provide some excerpts from the book of the Multi-lap flight in the next few days.--Karloss12 (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
You asked: What is the WP policy on consistency across articles with subjective terms such as flight? I don't believe any explicit policy exists to make a non-technical word like "flight" consistent across Wikipedia articles. (There are guidelines for technical terms in certain disciplines like medicine, mathematics, etc.) More to the point is that: Each article is based on its reliable sources. In the case of the Wright Brothers, reliable sources state unequivocally when they first made powered controlled flights, which by consensus of historians are considered the world's first. Sources for Pearse make varying claims and statements, and that's what the Pearse article is obligated to report, according to fundamental Wikipedia policy. We, as editors, are not authorized to "regularize" terms or definitions on our own. Each article is based on its sources, and if that creates ambiguity across articles, there is no "remedy", other than to scrutinize the sources and make sure they are accurately summarized in any given article. DonFB (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources[edit]

Reliable Source: The Riddle of Richard Pearse by Gordon Ogilvie. 4th Edition (revised)

Published by New Zealand's largest book publisher: Reed Publishing (NZ) Ltd

The most relevant content on the back cover:

  • Though the Wrights were clearly the first to achieve sustained and controlled powered flight, the question of whether or not Pearse beat them into the air remains an open issue. He was certainly the first citizen in the British Empire to accomplish a powered takeoff in his own aircraft, probably as early as 31 March 1903.

The end of the Prologue provides the following:

  • Pearse's earliest aeronautical experiments almost certainly pre-date the Wright brothers' first flights at the Kill Devil Hills and may have been the most successful powered flight attempts made anywhere in the world up to that time. He was certainly the first person in the British Empire to make a powered takeoff in a heavier-than-air machine. And that is not to mention the farsighted features of his first aircraft's design; nor the ingenuity of his last plane, a convertible aeroplane-helicopter; nor his other assorted inventions.
It was not until five years after Richard William Pearse's death (he died in 1951) that the investigation of his achievement got underway. This operation and the startling revelations which have resulted are the substance of what follows.

Page 52, Chapter 7, Aloft: There is a single "Take off attempt" in which the plane is airborne for between 45-400 metres, which is corroborated by many witnesses. This is the March 31st 1903 flight. Ogilvie doesn't use the word "flight" for this event. Not even in the dictionary sense of the word.

Page 70, Chapter 9, Further Trials: There are many single witness accounts of 'flights', and many witnesses describe the flying machine sitting on top of a hedge for some time after the great snow of mid 1903 (The only snow storm between 1902-1905). However no accounts of how the flying machine got up there.

In the book, Ogilvie refers to a dozen or so of Pearses experiments as Flights. He also elaborates on what sub-term may be given to many flights (Powered Flight, Powered Glide etc). Many of them can be reliably dated to be in 1902 or 1903, however they all only have a single witness account or can not be match with other accounts, and therefore are deemed by the book to be uncorroborated.

A dozen or so datable uncorroborated witness accounts with accurate descriptions of the flying machine make it almost certain that Pearse was achieving flights with his aviation experiments in 1903, however the nature of the flight cannot be reliably determined. Pearse himself and historians say that Pearse never achieved Sustained Controlled flight.

I like that Ogilvie doesn't use harsh statements such as "a witness claimed" to describe witness interviews. He takes an interview at face value and tries to corroborate it with other sources.

The book describes how in 1956, George Bolt was the first to take up the task of Researching Richard Pearse. Three years after Pearse's death and five decades after the flights.

--Karloss12 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Wings Over Waitohi: The Story of Richard Pearse by Geoff Rodliffe

Publisher: [Auckland, N.Z.] : C.G. Rodliffe in association with Avon Press, 1993.

In Wings Over Waitohi Rodliffe wrote: 


  • Wild and inaccurate statements have been published from time to time concerning
 Richard Pearse’s achievements in the field of aviation. However, no responsible
 researcher has ever claimed that he achieved fully controlled flight before 
the Wright brothers, or indeed at any time… Obviously, Pearse’s short 
hops or flights, whilst they established that he could readily become airborne, 
did not come within this category.

--Karloss12 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corroborated Flights/Hops[edit]

I am going to develop some article content for the 31 March 1903 flight. It is currently very brief with only two lines in the article.--Karloss12 (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncorroborated Flights/Hops[edit]

Historians have completed dozens of independent witness interviews which contain reliably dated events. Taken together, the witness interviews and affidavits make it almost certain that Pearse was flying or hopping in 1903, or even in 1902. "The Riddle" and "Wings Over Waitohi" come to this conclusion.

I intend to develop a paragraph to present this "conclusion" in some way.

The second paragraph of the 'flights' section, categorising all of the witnesses is good.

The third paragraph of the 'flights' section passes off the dozen or so uncorroborated research related tidbits as fact (Starting with "Some witness accounts suggest......"). It is too long and itemised. It is also meaningless to a casual reader of WP. I would like to remove this list and replace it with something simple and easy to read, like the first sentence above (i.e. Historians have completed....).

About 95% of the content in the 'flights' section of the WP article is considered uncorroborated in "the riddle" and have critical differences from what appears in "the riddle". There are a couple of these uncorroborated flights which are well known in New Zealand and perhaps deserve a sentence or so, clearly concluding that they are uncorroborated. Otherwise 95% of the section needs to go.

--Karloss12 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to add a description of some of the notable uncorroborated flights below for reference:

1903. Multi-Circuit Paddock Flight, Richard Pearse's Farm, Waitohi

Witnessed only by John William Casey, born 1896, observed the following:

  • "After a short run of about three chains (about 60.35 metres) Pearse's flying machine lifted off from an elevated part of the paddock, rose to about sixty feet (about 18.3 metres) and, after flying two and a half circuits of the field, perhaps 1.5 miles (perhaps 2.4 km), landed on the gorse hedge separating the corner paddock from his workshop paddock. He thought the event lasted about ten minutes."

In "the riddle":

  • Casey cites multiple other people who witnessed this flight with him including Baxter and Wade and Warne (Pearse's Brother).
  • Baxter and Wade mention other flights, but nothing similar to this.
  • Warne made many testimonies over the years and doesn't mention he saw or heard of anything like this.

The WP article incorrectly infers that Baxter and Wade are corroborated witnesses to this flight.

--Karloss12 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Above, you said: Taken together, the witness interviews and affidavits make it almost certain that Pearse was flying or hopping in 1903, or even in 1902. .... I intend to develop a paragraph to present this "conclusion" in some way.
A reminder, if I may, that editors' role here is only to summarize well-sourced information, not to work toward our own "conclusion" of any kind about historical events. The phrase you used above: "make it almost certain", is out-of-bounds for a Wikipedia article, unless there is a reliable source which explicitly makes a statement to that effect. So, in constructing the text, take care to report only what the authors say, but not to synthesize their statements into an over-arching conclusion about what happened. Nor, of course, will it be appropriate to reach any conclusion based on quotations from primary sources. There might appear to be consensus among secondary and primary sources that Pearse made "hops", "flights", "takeoffs", or what-have-you, but any statement in the body of the text of what he reportedly did needs clear referencing--and no conclusions, other than any explicitly reported in reliable sources. DonFB (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated introduction to "Flight" section, 4 February 2022[edit]

Re: "Ever since the first aviation experiments, the use of the term 'flight' has often been contentious because it has no universally agreed definition" etc.

Failure is how scientific research advances. Failure is easy to achieve. If progress in pursuit of a great objective is measured in increments, then each small advance is worthy. "Aerial navigation", say to fly at will about the sky like a bird, in a self-propelled heavier-than-air flying machine, was without doubt the problem of the age and project objective of pioneering "aeroplane men". As Pearse pointed out, no one achieved navigated flight with their first aeroplane, but attaining Hargave's "some sort of flight" at that time would have been a noticeable and encouraging first step on the road to it.

If the 1904 St Louis World's Fair aeronautical contest set an acceptable standard for, or a definition of, "aerial navigation" or "flight" in aeroplanes, then perhaps, and as the grand prize passed unclaimed in 1904, no one had "flown", there or elsewhere. Regarding that 1904 event, Pearse publicly stated in 1909: "I did not, as you know, succeed in winning the prize, neither did anybody else."

The article is a biography of Pearse and his achievements. In contemporary context, Hargrave's 1901 comments represent the difficulties common among inventors.PH AKL (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Re: "In a 1928 letter to a newspaper, Pearse summarises his own progress towards achieving flight:" etc.

Pearse's summary is already quoted in the "Debunking the myth" section. It refers to the enormous 700–900 sqft oval or circular version of his flying machine fitted with his light 25 hp water-cooled engine, mentioned in a New Zealand newspaper in 1909, and was not a pre-1904 version of his first flying machine. Pearse described flight tests that year in the November 1909 article: "I have had several tests. Last week's was my most successful one, the machine rising readily, but tilting gradually at the rear owing to the rudder in that position disturbing the equilibrium." "Next week, if my trial is satisfactory, I will make preparations for the giving of public exhibitions." From a December 1909 article: "He has already had some trials but it is not easy to balance her. He has improved on previous performances every time, and in his latest effort he few about 25 yards."

To avoid perpetuating riddles or bamboozling readers, the quote should only be used in reference to the airframe and flight tests it refers to.PH AKL (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of "Debunking the Myth" because it is original research and from a wrong/unreliable source, 5 March 2024[edit]

The ‘Debunking the Myth’ section has been modified/replaced because it is primarily original research with an unreliable source which presents a polar opposite view with the main pack of reliable secondary sources as explained below.

Some background: The Walsh Memorial Library in Auckland possesses all of the contemporary news paper articles, documentation and witness testimonies relating to Richard Pearse’s flight experiments, including video testimonies recorded on camera by Television New Zealand in the 1970’s. These testimonies are collected from various researchers and interviewers in the 1950’s to 70’s, and letters/affidavits sent to MOTAT directly by witnesses. Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT) in Auckland possesses and displays much of the original physical equipment, such as Pearse’s Aircraft Engines. There are three reliable Secondary sources, which had access to the information contained in the Walsh Memorial Library Archives.

The most authoritative secondary source is ‘The Riddle of Richard Pearse’ by Gordon Ogilvie (first published in 1973, 4th edition in 2002). This book is extremely detailed. It provides names of dozens of witnesses, and their detailed explanation of events. The dates of some of these events are verified reliably (due to people moving away from the area), and anecdotally (i.e. I was pregnant when I witnessed it). Gordon Ogilvie concludes that Pearse ‘likely’ got airborne in public on 31st March 1903 (or less likely 1902), and that everyone needs to assess the evidence and make up their own mind. He refrains from referring to this event as ‘flight’.

Another reliable Secondary Source is ‘Wings over Waitohi’ by Geoffrey Rodliffe. This biography was written after ‘The riddle’ in 1993. It is aligned in most ways with ‘the riddle’, but states that the 31st March flight more likely occurred in 1902. Rodliffe refers to this event as a ‘flight’, in the dictionary sense of the word. He infers that he is satisfied that Pearse did fly in 31st March 1902, and that Pearse has let himself down by the ambiguous structure of his own letters to the media. Both of these books say that all of the available evidence points to Pearse achieving a powered take off on 31st March 1903 (or 1902), with the exception of Pearse’s own newspaper statements.

The third secondary source is a fact sheet article by MOTAT itself. The following is an excerpt from the article “Pearse’s great achievement was to design and build an aeroplane that he successfully powered into the air. It was a monoplane that was powered by a 2 cylinder petrol engine, and according to a number of eyewitness accounts, he successfully flew it into the air above his farm in the early 1900s. He managed to power his plane into the air and travel for about 150 metres before crashing into a gorse bush”, and “Using the eyewitness accounts and other circumstantial evidence researchers established what they believed to be the most likely date of Richard Pearse’s first powered take-off, on 31 March 1903”.

None of the research of the above three secondary sources has been challenged with respect to the accuracy/validity of their content. The only criticism is generic personal attacks on the authors. It can clearly be seen from these sources that there is no myth which is to be debunked. However there is uncertainty which needs to be assessed in a balanced in a non biased way.

The ‘Debunking the Myth’ is made up primarily of a collage of out-of-context Primary Sources, and a single secondary source of poor reliability as detailed below.

In the 24th April 2012 ‘Stuff’ article, Errol Martyn says that in a newly discovered 17 November 1909 article, Richard Pearse says that “I did not attempt anything practical with the idea until, in 1904”, stating that Pearse only started flying in 1910.

In a follow up ‘The Press’ article a week or so later on 11th May 2012, Evan Gardiner (chief executive of the Recreational Aircraft Association of New Zealand) criticizes Martyn for creating a false premise by intentionally failing to provide the context of the 1915 and 1928 articles, which demonstrate that Pearse was conducting aviation experiments with a completed aircraft in early 1904, and potentially earlier. In this 'Press' article Gardiner also refers to another recent TV interview of Martyn where he quotes the May 10, 1915 contemporary article of Pearse saying that he "started to solve the problem of flight about March 1904", claiming Martyn intentionally fails to disclose the very next sentence "The Wrights started at about the same time", which provides critical context. Gardiner also points out that Martyn knowingly, falsely claims that 48 witnesses of the 1902-03 flight experiments are ‘unnamed’, and claims without evidence that they are unable to accurately remember what happened in their lives at that time, in an attempt to have the witness testimonies discarded as irrelevant, so that any Pearse aviation experiments in 1902-03 can be disregarded. Gardener provides the correction, that the witnesses are named in ‘the riddle’ and Walsh Memorial Library archives. Many of the witnesses were also interviewed on Camera by Television New Zealand in 1960’s and 70’s. ‘The riddle’ demonstrates that many of the separate witness statements corroborate the march 31st take off event. The Pearse Wikipedia article references some of these named and witnesses, including some Youtube video’s. Gardener writes: “Over the years there have been many contenders come and go, to try to dis-establish Pearse's position in New Zealand history. Errol Martyn is the latest contender.”

So, there are three reliable secondary sources forming a main pack which rely on all of the Primary and contemporary secondary sources to come to a consistent conclusion. None of these secondary sources deal in myths, and none have ever had their evidence successfully proven wrong or debunked.

Additionally, there is the ‘stuff’ article and Errol Martyn which doesn’t challenge the three reliable sources, and instead makes a fresh assessment which misrepresents/discards much of the existing evidence, falsely concludes that Pearse started fabrication in 1904, and flew in 1909. I assess that the 'Press' article by Gardener has successfully revealed the ‘Stuff’ article and Errol Martyn’s research to be ‘unreliable’ and wrong. For Martyn to incorrectly write off the eyewitnesses as unnamed, strongly suggests that he has never visited the archives at the Walsh Memorial Library to conduct thorough research into Pearse, and therefore has limited knowledge of Pearse. There is therefore a need for Wikipedia editors to manage what to do with this wrong article. (Wikipedia:When sources are wrong)

In re-writing the section, “Debunking the Myth” has been removed because it is false original research (WP:No OR). ‘Uncertainty of flight experiments dates’ is a reasonable title. Where a topic is contentious or uncertain Wikipedia suggests providing a variety of the viewpoints. The conclusions of the main pack of three reliable secondary sources provide the viewpoint most recognised by researchers. There is no reason not to include them. In ‘debunking the myth’, they are not mentioned at all, which results in obvious bias (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

The ‘stuff’ magazine source from ‘debunking the myth’ remains, however much of the Primary Sources and all of the original research is gone, and because the ‘stuff’ article has been directly challenged by another secondary source (Press Article), details of the challenge are included in an effort to provide balance. This complies with approach 4c of Wikipedia:When sources are wrong. Only yesterday PH AKL removed the challenge content from the opposing 'Press' article from the original 'debunking the myth' section. This is an obvious act which makes the already wrong section even more misleading and biased. He is the editor who is making periodic changes to the ‘debunking the myth’ section, failing to include any mention of the three most reliable secondary sources while favouring the 'stuff' article which is polar opposite view from the main pack, and deleting any challenge to the biassed ‘stuff’ article. If PH AKL continues behaving in this way, dispute resolution will be required. Would Wikipedia moderators please advise on how to deal with such conduct from PH AKL? PH AKL seems to have the same approach as Errol Martyn by creating the Quantum of evidence which contains selective vague information. In this section PH AKL attempts to dissreagrd the witnesses as unrelaiable, even though many of the events that they witnessed are accurately datable. Perhaps PH AKL and Errol Martyn are one and the same.

The final result is the section has all of the main viewpoints, including the fringe ’Stuff’ article (with its challenges from 'the press' article), thus being balanced, and non biased.

If approach 1 of () was used, and the ‘stuff’ article was just left out, then someone would eventually come along at some point and add it in a biased way. --Karloss12 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Mr. Martyn. Repetition and imbalance was dealt to in a recent edit. "Quantum of evidence" (a legal term) was added as a title to the existing paragraph in the old "Debunking the myth" section quoting Gardiner. For background and balance, it was preceded with two added sentences on Gibbs-Smith's warning to researchers in 1959, and the reappearance of intimations of fallibility of witness memory in about 2003--centennial year article cited. Witness observations have been added to this biography. It may be fair to say that intimations of "fallibility of memory" was a blanket approach not backed up with a published credible case-by-case review of witness testimony. Perhaps that should be noted, but who to cite. Then again it may be unnecessarily long winded to, without bias, summarise the science and complete history of this matter from about 2003 leading to Gardiner's response in 2012, but if there is room and it can be cited, put it in.
The "Question of flight" title was created under the "Debunking the myth" section to hold the definition or question of flight created by Karloss12 as an introduction to "Flights". The old "Debunking the myth" section was better suited for questions and arguments over definitions, whereas "Flights" is better suited to witness testimony and accounts. In revision and simplification of that introduction, it was noted that Pearse's goal in flying was "aerial navigation" (an old term)--flying like the birds. Types of flight are covered under Flight. Given its apparent importance here, the matter should actually be dealt with there.
The new "Uncertainty of flight experiment dates" section bamboozles; it also unnecessarily doubles up on the paragraphs that were destined for the "Experiments on aerial navigation" (1904 onwards) section, making them difficult to add. Also, Pearse died in 1953, and was not present to write letters to newspapers in 2015. PH AKL (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Imbalance was not dealt with, and was getting worse with every edit that PH AKL was making. The 'debunking the myth' section, with its false 'original research' title originally contained the unreliable 'stuff' article, with a correction and challenge from the Gardener 'press' article. Very recently PH AKL removed the Gardener challenge, giving the false impression that the 'stuff' article was reliable.n

The inclusion of Gibbs-Smith in the article isn't important because his concerns are demonstrated to be unwarranted because some witness testimonies can be reliably dated by when they moved away from Waitohi. Gibbs-Smith didn't provide anything of substance to researcher Bolt. He only provided a warning about Witness reliability, and there was nothing special about this warning. Bolt assessed all of the evidence including this warning and by "mid-1958 Researcher George Bolt had tentatively concluded that all of his evidence showed that Pearse had conducted a public flight experiment on 31st of March 1903". Gordon Ogilvie makes this assessment about Bolt in 'the riddle'. Later with more evidence it was found that multiple witnesses had independently described the same 31st March 1903 Event. Multiple witnesses with a bad memory can't accidentally recollect the same event. Further more one of these 31st March witnesses left the Waitohi area in December 1903. There are also other cut off dates by other witnesses. This is why the 'stuff' article and anything which comes from Errol Martyn is disregarded as irrational and illogical. The basis for the poor memory argument is very weak, and three unchallenged reliable Secondary sources demonstrate this, however wherever possible PH AKL tries to push this weak fringe view ahead of the main view. Wherever Martyn's views are made, it should always be secondary to the main view from the reliable secondary sources. Martyn's unreliable views shouldn't be included becuase they only devalue the article.

I don't understand why the "Quantum of evidence" even exists. It was structured as though Gardener was responding to Gibbs-Smith. This is not the case. Gardener was exposing Martyn's views as irrational. The Gibbs-Smith/Errol Martyn/Gardener false memory discussion is all part of the same thing, and therefore should be contained in the same section. But I think that it all has an almost baseless premise, because multiple witness statements are dated and corroborate, as explained above. But unfortunately, 'stuff' published his drivel, and thankfully the 'press' have Gardener the opportunity to respond. For information, 'stuff' and 'the press' have the same parent company.

I don't understand why the 'question of flight' content was moved. Placing it before the 'flight' section helps to prevent readers from being confused with why so many similar flight related terms are being used for the same thing (e.g. hop, take off, flight, aviation experiment etc). It is best placed at the beginning of the article to explain why so many similar terms are used. There are definitions of flight (with respect to Pearse) which are not covered in [flight]. The secondary sources discuss the contentious use of the word 'flight' with respect to Pearse on multiple occasions. Some researchers use one definition, some use another. PH AKL's proposal that this important topic be excluded seems odd. It would result in all of Pearses paddock hops as being 'flights'. --Karloss12 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Pearse&oldid=1212844473"