Jump to content

Talk:Burt Rutan

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

Burt's wife

[edit]

What's the point of wikilinking her name if it redirects to Burt's article?--Anchoress 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should always wikilink even if it redirects to the same article because that subject might become notable later on. For example, if Burt Rutan's wife goes insane and murders 12 people, an article about her would be created and Burt Rutan's article would already be prepared for that. --Stellis 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I can hardly imagine little Tonya doing that! :} Akradecki 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health

[edit]

There are some mentions that Burt has had health problems recently. Does anyone know what they are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.244.14 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of info is in the early 2014 article linked to in the section below entitled "Sources", q.v. See the entry from 28 February 2014. N2e (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The current image is grainy and is full of JPEG artifacts. Would it be possible to find a higher quality picture somewhere? Ilikefood (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections of the article have virtually no references

[edit]

This is a very interesting article on an extremely interesting aerospace pioneer. Unfortunately, many sections of the article have not a scintilla of a verifiable source on which to base the many assertions made. This is particularly true of the section on Air and space craft designs. Without valid citations, a large amount of this interesting material will be, and properly should be, removed by any WP editor who questions it. N2e (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rather gradually removed a good bit of previously-tagged unsourced material over the past year or so — each time inviting editors who might have a source to add the material back in if they can verifiably cite it. Only a little has been added back in with sources.
Recently, I learned of a 1991 book about Rutan, Burt Rutan: reinventing the airplane, by Vera A. Foster. I have not been able to find a copy in a library, but did find source info on Google books, here. If anyone has a copy, or can obtain one, it might very well allow proper sourcing, and therefore retention of potentially good information, on many of Rutan's aircraft, at least up through 1991. N2e (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"eve"

[edit]

The "Eve" launch vehicle event (related to White Knight 2?) is in the news a lot recently. More material would be great!

Does someone want to clean-up the phrasing in the White Knight Two section? "Prophecy" is not a verb as used in that sentence. I suggest, "At the time, Branson predicted the maiden space voyage would have taken place in 18 months"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.35.14 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early-2010 articles on Burt Rutan

[edit]

1. January 2010: There is a significant article about Rutan just published in New Scientist. Here is the link: Burt Rutan: The maverick of Mojave, New Scientist, 2010-01-28. It may be useful for editors who want to support some of the unsourced claims in the article. N2e (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. March 2010: Another recent long-form interview with Burt Rutan was just posted at Big Think: Burt Rutan: Aerospace Engineer, March 3, 2010. The interview is indexed with some subheads so one can view a part of the interview based on subject. N2e (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Burt Rutan write this article?

[edit]

Because it seems like who ever wrote this article seems he as God himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.38.84 (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha Ha! That's funny! Indeed, in the aviation and aeronautical engineering community, Rutan IS God! (figuratively of course). I tried to remove some of the gushing in the first paragraph. He has done many great things in aeronautics though and I can see how first drafters could find it hard to restrain from honoring his holiness .... um.... ah.... I mean "...restrain from honoring him".  :-) 108.7.3.86 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rutan is obviously a much heralded aviation pioneer, as is supported by many well-referenced claims about his various accomplishments in aviation design. Still, if claims are made in this Wikipedia article that reflect synthesis or original research rather than well-written summaries of reliable, published, secondary sources, then those specific claims ought to be fixed, tagged or removed. N2e (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • An early 2014 article in The UK Guardian is a reliable source for quite a bit of information on Burt Rutan, his health, family and tradeoffs from his work life, aircraft designs, testing, company culture, etc. Definitely worth consulting to ferret out some new info to improve the article. Jon Ronson is ready for blast-off. Is Richard Branson?, 21 Feb 2014. The Rutan material is about 2/3 to 3/4's through the rather lengthy article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burt Rutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

[edit]

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Burt Rutan. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Burt Rutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Burt Rutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burt Rutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burt Rutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Designs

[edit]

"each of Rutan's designs have often been quite dissimilar from their predecessors" States the current article, section 2 Aircraft designs. Translated from the original Gibberish? (LAT Website currently unavailable in Europe). If the designs were that "quite dissimilar" they would not fly. If the designs are different they are ALWAYS different, not "often". AnnaComnemna (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Discussion at BLPN

[edit]

Here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Burt_Rutan_and_major_reduction_in_presenting_his_views_on_environment_and_climate_change? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE statements

[edit]

"He went on to say of the publication, "They drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from the IPCC and Al Gore"

That adds nothing substantial. He is just parroting fringe propaganda, which in this case does not even contain anything beyond empty rhetorics. He could say exactly the same about every other scientific body he chose to disagree with: the University of XXXX drink Kool-Aid instead of doing research. They parrot stuff from YYYY and ZZZZ. How exactly does the article get better by us repeating his anti-scientific delusions? Anybody who wants to read such primitive shite can go to the original source. Wikipedia is not a medium for propagating denialist chest-beating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's his opinion attributed and offers additional understanding why he refused the interview. His opinion might not be "correct" but how does it hurt the readers by letting them know Rutan's opinion? The idea we need to remove any text that could possibly be seen as questioning anything related to climate change is problematic. Springee (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGEBLP "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence, especially when these views are incidental to their fame."
WP:PROFRINGE "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight."
The readers already know his opinion from the previous sentence. No useful purpose is served by adding details of his baseless ad-hominem attacks on a respectable publication.
If you think I want to delete that mediocre, unoriginal crap because it "could possibly be seen as questioning anything related to climate change", you are wrong. I want to delete it because it is mediocre, unoriginal crap and because it is not balanced by a majority position directly contradicting it. Thus, it is given undue weight, contrary to the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)FRINGEBLP doesn't really apply here since this isn't a question of not talking about his climate change views at all. It's not like this section was added as a platform to promote his particular views. I personally don't think he is really know for his views on climate change and the whole section could be removed. However, if we are to keep it, it makes sense to keep some of his reasoning. Certainly if one sentence is OK, a second isn't going to tip us over the line. Last January you removed much of his concerns, in particular his view that he was worried about government overreach. As for Profringe, no, that doesn't apply here. This isn't a case of a long section where he offers some alternative theory on why the climate data doesn't say what the experts say. This is his statement as to why he won't grant an interview to a particular publication. That this single sentence which focuses on his opinion of the publication is somehow going to propagate a fringe theory is an abuse of those guidelines. Springee (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. By the way Hob Gadling was partially reverting this edit so I ping the editor who added it, Harryzilber. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasoning"... even if it were reasoning instead of pure bile, it would have to be balanced by mainstream scientists contradicting him. See WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the lasting impact of Rutan's statements? He was briefly profiled about them years ago in some mainstream publications, but his presentations themselves have had no lasting impact and it isn't even clear to me why he decided to go on about this particular bit of science-denial that he seems to have adopted other than a political affinity. jps (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with removing the whole section. It doesn't appear that he did much with climate change outside of the one presentation over 10 years ago. Additionally, it seems his biggest concerns were that various governments would use climate change concerns as a power grab. I suspect that view is not wp:fringe even among many who agree that climate change is a problem. Springee (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a few rather over-the-top presentations he did at pretty obscure events over three successive years, but even still it's a pretty minor aspect of his biography in my opinion. It may be notable that he was a signatory of that nasty WSJ Op-Ed and that he snubbed SciAm (but not New Scientist which publishes equally forceful commentary on climate change -- so go fig). An argument could be made for WP:ONEWAYing this list of signatories at climate change denial instead of singling it out on the biographies themselves. At the very least, we can consider whether this particular opinion is worth the WP:PROMINENCE of its own section. Do we have other examples of his conservative politics to outline? If we couch it as a general political bent, this might serve the reader better anyway. jps (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but honestly I've only followed Rutan for his work in aviation. I would fully support removing the section if that is satisfactory to others. Springee (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not something he's known for, I also have no objection about removal. —PaleoNeonate – 18:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others opine, but I do think the section as-is might be a bit overweighted. I think the section was inserted back when he was making a lot of noise about global warming. But long about 2012, it seems he just shut up about the whole thing. Not sure why. jps (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, actually it's quite a big deal. Imagine Cliff Richard covering a Sex Pistols song complete with swearing: the fans would not be happy. So it is with Rutan. He's an icon in the self-build light aircraft frtaternity, and that includes a lot of science literate people, so it generated a seismic level of WTF. Guy (help!) 09:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that since it's clearly attributed as his statement and short, it could be WP:DUE. For the WP:NPOV concern, is it that it shows Rutan in a bad light (the quote is not an example of a valid argument)? —PaleoNeonate – 18:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above discussion I'm going to be BOLD and remove the section. Springee (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussions

[edit]

Yae4 wanted this removed and consensus was against. Don't ping Yae4 because he's now topic-banned from climate change. Guy (help!) 10:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mention is likely appropriate, but question as to whether it is worth a devoted section especially as it is really an outgrowth of his "unconventional" conservative/libertarian political views. Here is a source from August 3, 1995 New York Times which documents this [1]:

Mr. Rutan's political views are somewhat unconventional, too. He firmly believes that a 1967 book entitled "Report from Iron Mountain" (Dial Press), an account of a plan for a totalitarian, left-liberal new world order, was compiled by a secret cabal of Government officials. Other readers to the left of Mr. Rotan contend that "Iron Mountain" is actually a dark satire. In an article in The Wall Street Journal in May, Leonard Lewin, a book editor, reiterated his authorship and called it a work of fiction.

"What you fell for was the disinformation story," Mr. Rutan says....

Mr. Rutan goes on to predict that practical applications of quantum physics theory will solve the world's energy problems within the next few decades and that "manufacturing on the molecular level" -- to be made possible by exponential advances in computer power -- will mean that toxic waste and environmental pollution will be a thing of the past much sooner than most people expect.

In short, I see this as an outgrowth of an incurious mind when it comes to politics and futurism colliding with his engineer's ego that he knows better than everyone else. This is not unlike the various engineers who parrot creationist claims.
We cannot/should not connect the dots necessarily on this, but I think pointing out his unorthodox political views is perhaps the way into this point about him. It's part of a larger issue with respect to his approaches to things other than flying around or building interesting houses. jps (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find my self normally not agreeing with jps but I think this is a really good point. If you look at the climate change quote that was removed not long back it seems Rutan's more concerned about a government power grab that would be justified based on climate change rather than climate change in and of itself. Kind of a fear of a climate change industrial complex if you will. Rolling his climate change views into a small section on his political views in general would make more sense especially if his attitude towards climate change is actually a reflection of his attitude towards government and politics in general. I'm not sure if it needs to be called out as a sub-section or should just be a paragraph. Something like Rutan's has a xxx view of politics. This view has been expressed in the form of xxx. Preferably with better prose. Springee (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31 Jan edits to lead

[edit]

Darwin Naz, I think you added a good content to the article with your edit here[2] but it might be better to put more of this into the article body rather than the lead. For example, the part about Rutan getting started by copying sailplanes is good info for perhaps the history Life and career section or perhaps the aircraft section. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of most significant aspects about Rutan and thus placed in the lead (which is was already a bit long). Is there enough information in the source to expand the information about his material use? If yes I think it would be good to perhaps add a paragraph or two in the body as part of a lead section of the Aircraft Designs section. The current LA Times quote is nice and fluffy but short on facts/evidence. I like your content better in that regard (though I would keep both). Springee (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your insight. I will see what I can do about your suggestions once I am able to edit from my rig. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Sources can be confirmed in each award’s article”

[edit]

An editor removed a citation on an award received by Burt Rutan stating, “sources can be confirmed in each award’s article”. While that is true, it seems to be contrary to WP:WINARS. Even if the wiki-linked award article has a verifiable source, using another article’s reference seems contrary to WP:CW. Years ago, I ran into a similar issue when creating a list of people and was told one should not rely on other articles to provide citations. That is, each article should provide stand-alone citations. It seemed like overkill to me at the time, but I agree that standalone citations are probably better for WP:BLP. I searched hoping to find some unambiguous advice for this situation but no luck. I did search featured articles (representing the best wiki has to offer) on aviation individuals, and the following have their own separate citations for each award and do not rely on the award’s article: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins, John Glenn, Christopher C. Kraft Jr., Glynn Lunney, Alan Shepard, and John Young. Any thoughts on best practice for this issue? Skeet Shooter (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burt_Rutan&oldid=1230427386"