Talk:Le Grand Saut

Merge with Michel Fournier (Adventurer)

• Agree. The only reason the person is notable is because of the event. We don't need two articles; there's very little that can be said in one that's not also said in the other. Whichever way you do the merge, keep the other title as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also Agree. This is a one-article issue, not a two-article issue. Skybum (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I Agree also. As argued above, this is a one-article issue. odea (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.253.21 (talk)

I "agree". This article is about one occasion, and on Michel Forunier's page there is barely anything containing this. This is short enough to put in his article. Messiisking (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

(put in discussion page, waiting for references)

Michel Fournier has been widely criticized within the skydiving community as he was unable to prove many of his claims about the number of skydives he made and the French record he pretends to have.

Even if it's supposed to be a great event, nor French Skydiving Federation nor French Army support Fournier.

His freefalling ability is often depicted as bad and dangerous for a jump in low-density atmosphere where aerodynamic supports are weak.

During the 20 years of the project, the gondola has never flown a single time. Michel Fournier has never been seen jumping from a balloon or an helicopter, although jumping in zero relative airspeed is very different than jumping from a plane.

Michel Fournier doesn't plan intermediate steps, he plans to go directly to 40 km even if it's seen as dangerous not to test his equipment in better conditions.

During his 2008 may attempt, a webcam was supposed to webcast his attempt. It became non-free and internauts had to pay to see the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's certainly appropriate to have a criticisms section, if there are citable references that can be found. Please be very careful about the wording you use, however. A statement like "the French record he pretends to have" is libelous and in violation of WP:BLP. If a court has convicted him of falsifying his record, then it should be stated that this is so; otherwise, it shouldn't be in the entry at all. Furthermore, the more general criticisms (such as not planning intermediate steps) need to be attributed to specific critics, rather than stated as plain fact. Skybum (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)