Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 14

History By Contract re-write

 * Here is my suggested re-write for the History By Contract ("HBC") article. Once revised, the references within the GW article to HBC will be revised.

";History By Contract

History By Contract, limited numbered edition, published in West Germany, 1978; USAFR (ret.) Maj. William O'Dwyer and Stella Randolph (241 pages of text; 48 pages of images; 99 pages of documents; index of documents, no index of text)' the central theme of the book, as stated by O'Dwyer, is that a "cover-up" (Chapter VI "The cover-up") by "Wright interests" and the Smithsonian Institution has prevented recognition of Gustave Whitehead as being the first human to fly a powered aerial machine.

In Stella Randolph's view, History By Contract is an update of her 1937 book Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead with new material gathered by O'Dwyer and others during a 15 year period from 1963 to 1978. Several new witness affidavits were taken and some of the new interviews were recorded and video taped.


 * The title's meaning

The "contract" of the book title refers to the Wright-Smithsonian agreement, which prohibits the Smithsonian from officially recognizing any manned, powered, controlled airplane flight before that of the Wright brothers on 17 December 1903. The agreement ended a bitter feud that existed between Orville Wright and the Smithsonian over credit for the first such flight. After short test flights of the heavily-modified Langley Aerodrome by Glenn Curtiss in 1914, the Smithsonian claimed that the Aerodrome, created by former Smithsonian Secretary Samuel Langley and unsuccessfully tested shortly before the 1903 Kitty Hawk flights, was the first winged machine to be "capable" of powered, controlled, manned flight. Orville believed that claim "perverted" the history of flying machines and refused to donate the 1903 Kitty Hawk Flyer to the Smithsonian, loaning it instead to the London Science Museum. When the Smithsonian recanted its claim, Orville agreed to have the Flyer sent back, but died before it returned to the U.S.


 * History By Contract's Conclusion

"Conclusion" (p. 241); Maj. O'Dwyer and Stella Randolph offer "two petitions to the United States of America, its citizens, and its representatives":

1) the first petition makes three "requests": "… the rejection and nullification of the Smithsonian-Wright contract in its entirety…"; "… review of the practices and acts of NASM, the duties and obligations of NASM and its staff, the qualifications of all NASM employees…"; and "… enactment of legislation which will be enforced, precluding any agency from ever again attempting to represent the United States of America in any similar agreement in the future.";

2) the second petition states that the 1948 agreement had "… denied us the attainment of our purpose of securing [a] complete study, review, and decision concerning Whitehead's place in aviation history…"; the petition asks "… our Government to institute promptly a review of all of our combined research records and findings concerning the work and history of Gustave Whitehead, by a group of true aviation authorities, intent upon scientific investigation and research for the purpose of arriving at truth, rather than secure some morsel of information they may turn to advantage in bolstering preconceived and unfounded beliefs and ideas."

See the Wikipedia article on Gustave Whitehead for a summary of his aeronautical efforts."


 * Sources and citations will be added after the text is settled. Comments and suggestions, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It needs referencing on the book's content, influence, meaning etc by parties not related to the book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been seeking "outside" commentary about this book, but am having a Dickens of a time finding any. I've posted a simpler version of the suggested History By Contract article on the History By Contract Discussion page. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like it fails the GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The situation, as I see it, is that the book is certainly notable but apparently only to the pro-GW group. Those who reject the claims made on behalf of and by GW seem to not have made public comments about the book. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Isn't this a fairly common circumstance ? A published work will not provoke opposing commentary but does contains material of note. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable too, although that does seem hard to prove under the rules. The fact that little or nothing has been written about it seems to support something I said earlier: the defenders of the Wright orthodoxy merely dismiss this (or any) challenge, but, subsequent to Gibbs-Smith, don't even bother to offer evidence or serious argumentation to back up their dismissal. If anyone mounts a serious challenge to the existence of the HBC article, it may be appropriate to invoke WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules). DonFB (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt IAR would count as a satisfactory argument at AfD, and Verifiability is one of the core policies. The answer is to find sourcing. There may be adequate coverage by pro-GW authors; though they might be supporters of the premise, so long as they were not directly involved in the book they would probably count as being not "affiliated with the subject or its creator". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(Further Discussion of the History by Contract article can take place in its Discussion space. I have copied and pasted the above text [starting with: "Sources and citations will be added..."] to the HBC discussion.) DonFB (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV lost cause for Whitehead article
Depicting Whitehead as a successful flyer, as Cochrane did in 1904, is a lost cause. The fact that Cochrane's book from 1904 was overlooked by modern aviation scholars (post 1948) is telling to this reader. But, since some believe that contemporary content is trumped by "modern" research, Cochrane's book from 1904 is useless as a reliable NPOV source that Whitehead flew before 1904. Even if additional reliable evidence was to emerge proving that the Wright Brother's, in fact, flew after Whitehead, it wouldn't matter one bit to the Smithsonian or the curators at Kill Devil Hills National Monument. More or less; even if you were to find a telegram from Wilbur Wright to Whitehead congratulating him on his flight of 14 August, 1901, a movie or photograph of him "in flight", he will still be "nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation" to some modern aviation authorities and in turn here on Wikipedia. Whitehead followers will have to be content with the fact that he will always have a place in the history of aviation in Connecticut and his information and a reproduction of his machine are safe at the U.S. Army owned Connecticut Air and Space Center at Stratford, Connecticut.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you complaining about? The article now includes your "1904" section quoting Cochrane about GW. I think it was a fair addition. What else would you like the article to say? I think Whitehead followers can be gratified there's a rather exhaustive article about him here on Wikipedia--an article that actually devotes more space to a thorough discussion of his reported flights than to contradicting them. Do you want Wikipedia to make a unilateral declaration that GW flew? Is that your idea of "NPOV"? DonFB (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the best place to argue whether Gustave Whitehead built and flew Aeroplanes in the highly industrialized city of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Cochrane's book from 1904, is a neutral source that places him among the short-list of successful flyers at that time (1904). It even puts him ahead of (chronologically) and on the very same page as the Wright Brother's. How could anyone overlook that? Do you have to wonder why this book is not referenced by modern aviation authorities dismissing Whitehead? They have swept Cochrane and Whitehead under the carpet. Whitehead's work has been minimized, rebuffed and dismissed by mainstream aviation historians. This fact has now become a prominent part of Whitehead's history and that of the history of aviation in Connecticut.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know where the "best place" is to argue about GW, but this article now includes the ill-remembered Cochrane and his statement about GW, which speaks highly for this website and its ideal of neutrality. I can sympathize with your woe over a perceived injustice, but in my opinion, this article fully gives GW his day in court by describing and quoting the views and testimony of all the major players in the drama. I understand that for believers in the GW gospel, nothing short of an unequivocal declaration of his primacy will be sufficient. If the photo or film or other indisputable evidence turns up, you can be sure its existence will be included in Wikipedia, unless, of course, the Great Conpirators keep it hidden, which I'm sure is an opinion already held by many GW devotees. DonFB (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you don't think the establishment, the Smithsonian or the curators at Kill Devil Hills National Monument, would accept such a photo or they would say that it doesn't matter. But what really matters is the impact it would have on all the people in the world who, like me, have learned that the Wright brothers made the world's first successful motorized flights in 1903. What the Smithsonian or the curators at Kill Devil Hills National Monument would say wouldn't matter at all. Don't give up the struggle for a neutral point of view in this article about Whitehead. That would only help the convinced Wright brothers supporters who want this article to express a lot of doubt and confusion about Whitehead's flights, and say that even if it could be shown that Whitehead made motorized flights years before the Wright brothers started their experiments it wouldn't matter. Don't you realize that if you give up and let this article become a partial article leaning towards the views of the Smithsonian or the curators at Kill Devil Hills National Monument you are helping those who want to promote such views? Roger491127 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And wikipedia is actually the most used reference for facts today, so it is very important to get this article as objective and correct as possible. Please help with that instead of giving up. Roger491127 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is not beyond improvement, but in my opinion it is now quite "objective and correct". Deleting or suppressing well-sourced information, however, will not improve it. DonFB (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, is the above rant an overt declaration by you that you intend to push a fringe view onto the world, pushing aside the mainstream view? I think that it is. You cannot use Wikipedia to Right The Great Wrong as you perceive it. Wikipedia tells the reader what the mainstream viewpoint is, and then explains minor viewpoints giving them lesser weight. You must accept this and stop pushing your POV here. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to push a fringe view onto the world. I just want the article to present the evidence of both sides in a way which is as neutral as possible. And I don't like that you call my argumentation "a rant". Roger491127 (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The article in its present form is quite neutral, I'm happy to report. It's not beyond improvement, but it's comfortably neutral. I understand that the article may not seem that way to you, because "neutral" to you means a proclamation that everything claimed for GW is gospel truth. You have complained about the article introducing "doubt" or "confusion" about GW's achievements. News flash--there is doubt and confusion about GW. The verdict on GW, according to the sources, is not unequivocal. Quite the opposite. There is no clear-cut "truth" about GW. The amateur researchers say there's no doubt that he succeeded. The professional scholars say he did not. That adds up to "doubt" and "confusion". And this article reports those findings accordingly. This article does not pretend that doubt and confusion are absent from the narrative of GW's life and work. Try to wrap your your newly neutral mind around those realities. DonFB (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And Binksternet, your statement above: ""Non-academic" is needed—badly—to separate the Whitehead-o-philes from the great mass of aviation scholars who do not give a fig for Whitehead, and credit him with nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)" is such an extreme POV that you should realize yourself that you are too partial too participate in editing this article. You also rely far too much on Gibbs-Smith, who wrote his judgment of Whitehead in the 1950s and the only sources he quoted were the faulty arguments of Orville Wright, which were adopted by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers and admirers. Roger491127 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The major contributors to this Wikipedia article have all read the New York Sun article from July 1901 about his unmanned powered flights and desire to experiment in secret. They have also read Cochrane's book from 1904 that places Whitehead ahead of chronologically and literally on the very same page as the Wright Brother's. The book was published in 1904 (reprinted 1911), a year after Whitehead had fallen out of publicity and into obscurity, according to "mainstream" aviation historians and Wikipedia until just a few weeks ago. The article now contains this new content from July 1901 and late 1904 in a manner that helps the reader to understand Whitehead's place in the history of aviation before 1904.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is now better at describing GW's place in aviation when he was active. It's the advantage of an electronic encyclopedia, which can change and improve without a tedious trip to a publisher, printing press and delivery vans. DonFB (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, do you still think that Gibbs-Smiths argument: "The myth of Gustave Whitehead having made a power flight in 1901 was founded upon the story which appeared in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901. Although this mythical flight was alleged to have taken place on August 14th, and to have been witnessed by a Herald reporter, the news was withheld four days and appeared as a feature story in a Sunday edition of that paper! Would the editor of the Herald have held back for four days a story of such great human and historical interest, if he believed it to be true?" is valid, now when we know that Bridgeport Sunday Herald was only published on Sundays, so the delay from August 14 to August 18 had a very valid explanation?

And do you still think that Gibbs-Smiths argument: "John J. Dvorak, a Chicago business man, who in 1904 was on the teaching staff of Washington University of St. Louis, spent some months that year with Whitehead at Bridgeport, while Whitehead was building a motor financed by Dvorak. Dvorak finally came to the conclusion that Whitehead was incapable of building a satisfactory motor" is valid now when we know that Dvorak was very impressed with Whitehead's ability to build engines until he got very angry at Whitehead when Whitehead told him that Dvorak's engine design was faulty and could not work, and after that Dvorak did everything he could to discredit Whitehead? And we now have a lot of evidence that Whitehead was a very capable engine builder. Doesn't Gibbs-Smith sound very misinformed in the light of these discoveries? And that are only two of the mistakes from Gibbs-Smiths book, the rest of the arguments are equally invalid.Roger491127 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And note that Gibbs-Smith wrote this in 1960, many years after Orville had presented his arguments against Whitehead's flights. What does that say about Gibbs-Smith's abilities as a serious aviation historian and an independent researcher? It shows that he made no research at all. He lazily repeated Orville's arguments from 1945, without doing any checking up of the facts at all.Considering how misinformed and wrong Gibbs-Smith was in all he wrote about Whitehead I seriously question if we should mention him at all in this article.Roger491127 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't ignore 1970! Gibbs-Smith had just completed his year as a Lindbergh Scholar, and his 1970 book is the result of deep research into primary sources. In the 1970 book he says that Whitehead was a promoter of falsehoods. The book lists Stella Randolph's 1937 book as a source, so we know Gibbs-Smith has included all the affidavits and Randolph's arguments in his very negative assessment. This effectively caps any of the arguments that can be extended by way of Randolph or the affidavits, and it puts an absolute ceiling on any other pro-Whitehead debate before 1969. All such arguments as presented here on Wikipedia must be delivered to the reader as having been dismissed by Gibbs-Smith. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Gibbs-Smith really do as much deep research into primary sources as you say? If he had, why rebuff Cochrane? Cochrane's 1895 book, The Wonders of Modern Mechanism, and his 1904 book, Industrial Progress (reprinted 1911), are the first to classify aerial navigation by means of Flying Machines and Aeroplanes as an industry. In 1895, Cochrane lists the accomplishments of; Maxim, Wellner, Lilienthal, Hargrave, Phillips, Langley and Cooper, in that order. In 1904, he lists the accomplishments of; Lilienthal, Pilcher, Chanute, Whitehead and the Wright Brother's, in that order. All of these men have secured their place in aviation history except Whitehead who it seems has become conspicuous by his absence. The reason for the snub by Gibbs-Smith, is just too glaringly obvious to this reader.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult at all to understand. I believe that all the other men (though I'm not familiar with Wellner) left lasting documentation or evidence of their work (including photographs of aerial activity), or were reliably witnessed or documented multiple times in the act of accomplishment. In Whitehead, we have a single documentary witness account by a professional source of an accomplishment that could earn a lasting and deserved reputation. Everything else about him is reports of reports or documentation of machines on the ground but not in flight or decades-tardy witness reports of flight. There are photos of him gliding, but that came after powered flight had been achieved, and thus did not deserve enduring notice. Whitehead is like Frost, Watson, Ellehammer, Phillips, Vuia and Jatho--he did something, but failed to follow through in a sufficiently public and accomplished manner to earn a reputation equal to the undisputed pioneers like the others you listed. His work, by the evidence and documentation left to us, compared to that left by the other pioneers, simply was not in their class. Perhaps the scorn he has received is due to the less than convincing efforts of his boosters to raise him to an undeserved plateau with the other pioneers, whose work is beyond question. Perhaps with more modest claims, he might not have been so vehemently dismissed. DonFB (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Whitehead never crowned himself as the first to make a controlled powered airplane flight, why are his claims so vehemently dismissed? Cochrane mentioned in 1895, that the newspapers and press were to blame for making "flight's of fancy" out of new inventions. I think it's clear that Whitehead erred by giving the newspapers so much access, flying in secret and not soliciting a photographer to document his flights. His mishandling of the press, his lack of record keeping except for a US Patent and some patent applications and his lack of soliciting photographers to document his flights, might be his greatest contribution to the rest of the pioneers after 1901. Especially the Wright Brother's, who relied on solicited photographs and solicited eyewitness accounts (from the right people) to document their flights in 1903. And, Chanute does remark to thw Wright Brother's in a letter that they were lucky the "newspapers had not found them yet".Tomticker5 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see: by mishandling his documentation and publicity, GW inadvertently let other pioneers who equalled his feat after him claim the credit that was rightfully his, eh? Interesting that you point out that Cochrane blamed the press for "flights of fancy," which certainly was common practice in "journalism" in those days. Any chance that dynamic was operating in the Bridgeport Herald on Aug 14, 1901? Speaking of self-crowning, in letters to American Inventor magazine, GW did claim credit for the Aug 14, 1901 flight, and more brazenly, for what he himself described as the first return-to-start flight in his alleged 7-mile flight over Long Island Sound. So, although his rhetoric was subdued, he still went pretty far toward self-aggrandizement in those communications. Your account of the Wright brothers is a little mixed up. They took all their own photos and never solicited photos by others; that was anathema to them. (Although on Dec 17, 1903 they did request a coastal lifesaver crewman to squeeze the shutter bulb on their pre-aimed camera--you've seen the picture, I believe.) They did, indeed, solicit some witnesses for their 1904-05 Huffman Prairie flights--the "right people," as you say: respectable business and local government men, who would be credible as witnesses. In 1903, their only witnesses were the three coastal lifesaving crewmen, a traveling businessman and a local teenage boy--not exactly the "right people" in your meaning of the phrase. And it was not Chanute to Wilbur, but Wilbur to Chanute who said the press had not bothered them, which was just the way the Wrights wanted it. Unrelated--but if you don't mind--this is driving me nuts: the correct spelling of brothers <-- is just like that; there is no apostrophe in the plural of brother; just add the letter s without fanfare. Same for almost any other noun, btw. (Examples-- Plural: "She has three cats." Possessive, using the apostrophe: "The cat's fur was dirty." In a future lesson, we can do contractions; can't leave them out; they're easy too.) DonFB (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We actually don't know if he lacked in record keeping, because large amounts of his papers were scrapped when the family sold his house and moved to Florida in the 1940s. And to DonFB: Whitehead flights actually have enough documentation when we sum up Howell's article, the affidavits collected in the 1930s, prof B Crane's investigations in 1936 and forward, and the investigations by CAHA who located and interviewed people from Bridgeport and found additional evidence for his flights and other evidence, like Stanley Beach's writings. That is enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he built and flew at least one, probably three airplanes more than 500 meters. And the one and a half mile (2400 m) flight August 14, 1901 seems to be both proven and reasonable enough considering his 800 m flight in the morning of the same day which is even better documented. Roger491127 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Malarkey. There absolutely is doubt that Whitehead ever flew. The 1901 aircraft was a fantasy. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Evidence for possible hops, but hardly proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a 500 m flight. Your POV is showing. Again. Your statement makes a joke of your own comment above, and I quote, "I just want the article to present the evidence of both sides in a way which is as neutral as possible." You conclude the event happened "beyond a reasonable doubt" and you consider that being "neutral"? Get a clue. Even if you're convinced about all these events, stop bringing your certainty to the article. Approach editing with a neutral point of view. As if you didn't know "the truth". Stop trying to Right The Great Wrong, as Binksternet has told you. It's against the rules. Edit by accurately describing what the sources say or show, not by what you think they prove. That's how this encyclopedia works. DonFB (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that my conclusion after investigating all evidence is the same as O'Dwyer's and Georg K. Weissenborn's, in the January 1988 edition of Air Enthusiast: "The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test 'hop', witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut. For this assertion to be conclusively disproved, the Smithsonian must do much more than pronounce him a hoax while wilfully turning a blind eye to all the affidavits, letters, tape recorded interviews and newspaper clippings which attest to Weisskopf's genius."[14] The writer was Georg K. Weissenborn, a professor of German language at the University of Toronto. He was in communication with O'Dwyer before and after the article's publication.[55]". Roger491127 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And everything I have heard from the people who have come to the opposite conclusion, Orville Wright, Gibbs-Smith, Engler and Chmiel, and everything I have heard from the Smithsonian authors and Wright brothers biographers is full of incredible mistakes, obviously faulty arguments and a stubborn unwillingness to listen to all available evidence. Roger491127 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Stubborn unwillingness to listen to all available evidence". That's very entertaining but not part of reality, or this article. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely the prime reason for not believing Whitehead's claims is that they do not make any kind of sense. All the early flight pioneers like the Wright Brothers and the Europeans who reinvented the aeroplane such as Bleriot and A.V. Roe proceeded by a prolonged series of experiments with small incremental improvements interspersed by intervals of repairing the damage. A claim that a machine was wheeled out and immediatly flown to a considerable height strains credulity, as does the idea of tsting the thing with no pilot and no form of restraint. All this without asking why no further flights were made of this allegdly wildly successful machine: the claim that it was damaged by rain is, putting it kindly, extremly weak. And onh subject of historins, Gibbs-Smith's forte was examination of primary sources and, being an historian, mking assesments of tir credibility, & as noted most serious historians hardly bother with the man: for instance Richard Hallion's 500 page opus on the history of aviation up to the first world war relegates him to a single footnote. TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead crashed. As a matter of fact, you'll see one mention of a crash of his unmanned machine into a tree in the 1901 flights section. How do you explain the fact that in 1904, the man who was first to classify aerial navigation as an industry, Charles Cochrane, considered his work noteworthy enough to place him ahead of (chronologically) and literally on the very same page with the Wright Brother's in his book?Tomticker5 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Cochrane is clearly reporting something from another source, and the brief mention of Whitehead reads like this is a single report rather than a compilation of several. Given that his coverage of Langley, Lillienthal, the Wright Brothers &c is fairly comprehensive it is reasonable to assume that what he reports is all the information he had. Which, taken on its own merits is hardly a strong case for Whitehead: the idea of towing a glider into the air by a human being is implausible without the aid of a substantial headwind, which is not mentioned.  Whichever way you read it, it is no more than a report of a claim to have flown rather than a report of a flight. Cochrane then goes on to say "all the soarers, glider and aeroplanists have been outdone by the Wright Brothers"TheLongTone (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead is more than a brief mention in Cochrane. His inclusion and placement in this 1904 book speaks for itself. If Whitehead never flew, Cochrane would have left him out. And, wasn't it true that the Wright brothers had outdone all the previous soarers and gliders in 1903? Whitehead was included among the soarers before 1904, because he flew before 1904. All the modern aviation authorities in the world cannot undo that fact as presented by Cochrane in 1904 (reprinted in 1911).Tomticker5 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are putting words in Cochrane's mouth; he never said Whitehead flew in a powered aircraft. The inference and success-by-association you are relying on for your conclusion is not strong enough to establish the facts you wish to establish. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to TheLongTone: You say "A claim that a machine was wheeled out and immediatly flown to a considerable height strains credulity, as does the idea of tsting the thing with no pilot and no form of restraint."

Whitehead did not suddenly appear from nowhere, he had built many experimental airplanes before he started using nr 21 in the summer 1901. He had tested his airplane by flying around a central pole, which is even better than using a wind tunnel, because you can test a full-size airplane, and the whole plane, not just narrow parts of a wing section. By flying around a central pole you can adjust the aerodynamic properties until you achieve equilibrium so the plane does not dive or stall. You can test different motors until you find out how strong motor you need to lift off. You can adjust the position and shape of the wings, etc..

Other historians have pointed to the fact that Whitehead seems to have reach most success in 1901-Jan 1902 and then he achieved less and less, and they mean that this is a suspect fact because other pioneers reached more success with time. This reasoning seems reasonable, but it also seems reasonable to think that Whitehead had done most of his experiments in the 1890s and he reached a peak in 1901. After that his financial support dried up, he needed more time for the family, he did not feel any need to repeat what he had already achieved, and he had already demonstrated that he could fly to a journalist and many witnesses, he always wanted to try new ideas instead of repeating what he had already achieved, he suffered accidents, we don't know when but he had one eye damaged and he was hit in the chest by a very heavy steel block. When such accidents happen it is reasonable to assume that his aviation work slowed down, and he was getting older.

Others have pointed out that the effect to weight ratio got lower over the years for Whitehead, and see this as a regression, but we can see it from another perspective. When you have a very light airplane and try to cut down on the weight everywhere it is important to make a very lightweight motor. But when the weight of the airplane plus pilot becomes 700-1000 pounds the weight of the motor is not so important anymore, you can have a 30 kg motor instead of a 10 kg motor and it doesn't change the overall weight of the airplane much. Even Whitehead must have realized that using an explosive mixture of acetylene and oxygen was dangerous, so it became more important to get safety and reliability at the expense of effect to weight ratio.

Others have said that using two motors instead of one was stupid, because the added weight of an extra motor was a bad idea. But they do not understand that the heaviest part of those motors were the gas generators. A big tank of water in which you drop pieces of calcium carbide and a number of air/oxygen flasks. The "motors" were very lightweight constructions, a frame with cylinders for each motor. So having one motor for the wheels and one for the propellers did not add much weight, as the gas generators were common to the two motors. Roger491127 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Testing the thing with no pilot": Note that Whitehead nr 21 and 22 had a very large and curved wing area, which made it into an aircraft which was something between an airplane and a motorized parachute, a lot like some modern very lightweight aircrafts. The technical consequences of such a construction is that it could be tested like a kite without a pilot, it was safer than airplanes like Flyer 1, because the behavior like a parachute meant that it landed slowly and on the right keel. It didn't need a lot of speed to take off, and it didn't need a long start and land stretch. We have evidence that tell us that Whitehead 21 and 22 needed only 60 meter start and landing stretches. That he could start from one avenue, fly to the next avenue and land there, turn the airplane around and fly back to the starting point is easier to understand when we see his airplane as something between an airplane and a motorized parachute. He did not need to fly fast, and he couldn't fly fast, with those big and very curved wings. The slow flying parachute/airplane was easier to control because he had more time to react and avoid hinders, and the landings were soft and it was easy to aim it at a free place. When he landed in the water the low speed reduced the risk of tipping over forward. Roger491127 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, I am collapsing this part of the discussion because it is clearly not related to the arguments made by pro-Whitehead sources. Rather, it is a collection of your personal thoughts. As such, it is not helpful to improvement of the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I uncollapsed it as it consists of replies to arguments made by both TheLongTone and others who have argumented against Whitehead's flights. We have to consider these issues from a scientific and aviation technology point of view, as well as consider the sources. And to Binksternet: Please stop manipulating my writings on the talk page. Roger491127 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the arguments I am discussing have either been put forward by TheLongTone above or by Whitehead detractors over the years: "he had built many experimental airplanes before he started using nr 21 in the summer 1901. He had tested his airplane by flying around a central pole", "Other historians have pointed to the fact that Whitehead seems to have reach most success in 1901-Jan 1902 and then he achieved less and less, and they mean that this is a suspect fact", "Others have pointed out that the effect to weight ratio got lower over the years for Whitehead, and see this as a regression,", "Others have said that using two motors instead of one was stupid, because the added weight of an extra motor was a bad idea.", ""Testing the thing with no pilot"" Roger491127 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, you cannot use this talk page to discuss your personal observations and theories. Per WP:TALKNO, this talk page is solely for improvement of the article. Your responses to TheLongTone were not part of improving the article, they were simple argument on the general topic. Please limit your comments to specific suggestions for article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What I am writing are not my "personal observations and theories". It consists of well known principles of aerodynamics, like you can not fly fast with a big and very curved wing area, because such a wing works more like a parachute than a standard airplane wing, for example the wings of Flyer 1 which were short and straight, suitable for speeds above 60 mph. Whitehead's wings on nr 21 and 22 were very big and very curved so his planes could not fly faster than 20-30 mph, but had the advantage that it made his airplane very stable, and could lift off at slow speeds, and could be tested unmanned at low speed, and landed safely, as a pancake, as Stanley Beach expressed it. Other parts of what I wrote are based on witness sources, which say that he tested his planes by flying around a central pole, a technique used also by Sir George Cayley. See the article Wind tunnel Roger491127 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Contact between Whitehead and the Wright brothers
I found a fourth witness here: http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htmhttp://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm Don Chaplin says: 1/31/2010 at 11:55 pm My wife is a grandaughter of John Whitehead and great neice to Gustave,growing up she often heard her grandfather and grandmother talk of the time and money spent on Gustaves efforts. Her grandfather died in 1952 in Kamloops B.C.Canada, her grandmother talked of the times the Wright Bros. came to talk to Gustave about his ideas. Roger491127 (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The comment you are referring to is not reliable. The article is reliable in a non-academic fashion but the reader comments below it are not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course I understand this cannot be counted as reliable and sworn witness, but it is an indication from the family that more people than the three witnesses we already know about were aware of contacts between Whitehead and the Wright brothers. Roger491127 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Has it occurred to you that the family myth they are talking about is 100% wrong? It has occurred to me. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it has occurred to me, but the person who wrote it included a detail which should be fairly easy to check. If John Whitehead really died in 1952 in Kamloops B.C.Canada it lends a lot more authenticity to the story. Somebody who just wanted to spread a lie would not have included a fact which is so easy to check. Roger491127 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The family myth may easily contain parts that are true along with parts that are false. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an unreliable indication. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the Wright brothers attended a social function in Bridgeport in the early 1900s. Apparently, the list of prominent attendees is included in a new book about the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut soon to be released.Tomticker5 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That would, of course, be an interesting revelation, considering that the Wright brothers, or maybe only Orville, denied categorically that they had ever visited Bridgeport. According to him they had only passed Bridgeport on a train. Keep us posted about this book when you get your hands on it. Roger491127 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gustave Whithead's grandson has passed away. He lived in Trumbull, CT, a suburb of Bridgeport, and his obituary states that his grandfather flew years before the Wright brothers.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you are referring to the obituary in Ctpost.com (Connecticut Post), which published this text:
 * "Robert was the grandson of Gustave Whitehead who was reported to have succeeded in flying the first airplane in Pittsburgh in 1899, before the Wright Bros in 1903. He never achieved widespread recognition, his story remains fraught with mystery."
 * If that's your source, it's a little generous to say that it "states that his grandfather flew years before the Wright brothers." Perhaps you saw another obituary which makes the claim as unequivocally as you'd like. DonFB (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I receive the actual CT Post newspaper every day. I didn't want to insert the entire obituary here. But, the obituary states that he; "succeeded in flying the first airplane in Pittsburgh in 1899, before the Wright Bros in 1903". Aren't they saying that he flew years, 4 to be exact, before the Wright brothers? I forgot to add that the obituary also stated that a statue will be erected in Whitehead's honor by the City of Bridgeport, CT.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell us the full name of the newspaper, the date of the issue, and a little more of the text, before and after the expression "succeeded in flying the first airplane in Pittsburgh in 1899, before the Wright Bros in 1903" and the text before and after the statement about "a statue will be erected in Whitehead's honor by the City of Bridgeport, CT". As G Whitehead died a long time ago this can not be a normal obituary, unless it is a copy of the obituary which was published when he died. If it was published this year it must be some form of article, or an obituary in memory of GW. Give us more details. As far as I know a statue erected in Whitehead's honor by the City of Bridgeport was erected already many years ago. Is this text about that statue or about a new statue? Roger491127 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there's already a statue erected to Gustave Whitehead in Bridgeport or Lordship (Stratford), its location is a well kept secret. This is the obituary of Gustave's grandson, Robert Whitehead, who was born in Bridgeport and lived in nearby Trumbull. It appeared in the Connecticut Post yesterday and again today (February 16-17, 2012).Tomticker5 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about this at the end of section Rediscovery. Roger491127 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to the paragraph about the ceremony which happened when the pin on Gustave Whitehead's pauper's grave was replaced with a nice gravestone and all the prominent people who attended this ceremony. If I go back a year or two in the history of this article I will probably find it, well referenced and all. And I think that recognition should be mentioned in this article. It was partly that recognition which provoked the North Carolina General Assembly into issuing their statement which is mentioned in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I re-organized the lead. Before it was a start paragraph, followed by half of the support for GW's flights, followed by half of the dismissal by scholars, followed by the next half of the support, followed by the second half of the dismissal. I put the two parts of the support together, followed by the two parts of the dismissal. This is much easier to read and makes more sense, since the first half of the support didn't make much sense without the second half of the support. Roger491127 (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tomticker5: Your selective quotation from the Connecticut Post is highly misleading. I already quoted the entire relevant text in my reply earlier in this section of the Talk page. Your recent comment says:
 * "the obituary states that he: 'succeeded in flying the first airplane...' ".
 * Here's the actual quotation from the CtPost:


 * "Robert was the grandson of Gustave Whitehead who was reported to have succeeded in flying the first airplane..."


 * I bold-faced the portion of the text that you conveniently overlooked. The CtPost did not flatly state that Gustave flew the first airplane. It says he "was reported" to have flown. I hope you're able to understand the difference. DonFB (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was paraphrasing, if you understand what paraphrasing is.Tomticker5 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed I do, but you were not paraphrasing; you were quoting directly while omitting the crucial qualifier that said GW "was reported" to have flown, not that he definitively "succeeded in flying". Another editor has already picked up your misleading quotation and ran with it in the article, a problem I have since corrected. DonFB (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your literal quote. I looked only at the end of the section. Roger491127 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dismissed" in first paragraph
I restored the first paragraph to read like this: "Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them from about 1897 to 1915. Whitehead claimed to have flown several times in his own powered aircraft designs before the Wright brothers flew in December 1903. These claims, though supported by non-academic researchers in the 1930s and later, have been examined and dismissed by mainstream aviation historians, especially those associated with the Smithsonian Institution."

I feel that it is essential to tell the reader right away that Whitehead is important because he claimed to beat the Wright brothers to powered flight, and that this claim is dismissed by mainstream historians. At WP:MOSBEGIN, the guideline tells us to "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." The context is that the claim is dismissed by mainstream thinkers. The rest of the article should be considered within this context. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your formulation lacks a lot of important information. It should look more like this:

Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf' (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them from about 1897 to 1915. Whitehead claimed to have flown several times in his own powered aircraft designs before the Wright brothers flew in December 1903. These claims, though supported by a journalist eyewitness newspaper article and many sworn affidavits from witnesses collected by academic and non-academic researchers in the 1930s and later, have been examined and dismissed by mainstream aviation historians, especially those associated with the Smithsonian Institution.

Note that Crane 1935-1949 and G K Weissenborn were professors, so at least two of the researchers were academic. The only one of the dismissers I surely know was academic was gibbs-smith. So I suggest we strike the words "academic and non-academic". "Researchers" is good enough in the lead, their titles and qualifications can be described in detail in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And I don't think Whitehead ever claimed to have flown before the Wrights, he claimed to have flown several times during 1901 and 1902. There is no need to tell the reader that the Wrights flew for the first time in 1903, practically everybody in the world have learned that in school. Roger491127 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Best to put the Wright flight in context by giving a date. As to whether the whole world has been taught that - I think I'd class that as an Americo-centric viewpoint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, your formulation supposes that the affidavits support Whitehead flying. However, the affidavits include some that flatly deny Whitehead flying, and the confused nature of the collection of affidavits contributed to mainstream aviation historians dismissing them. You cannot tell the reader in the first paragraph that affidavits support Whitehead flying in 1901–03.
 * As well, your "journalist eyewitness newspaper article" has been dismissed as "juvenile fiction" by Gibbs-Smith, so that destroys the supposed eyewitness nature of it. In short, my first paragraph is more in line with mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, a professor of economics and a professor of the German language are not considered academics with regard to aviation history. In his day, Gibbs-Smith was considered a "lion" of aviation history; one of the top people in the field. The description of pro-Whitehead people as "non-academic" must stand. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion:
 * [First sentence, then]: "Whitehead claimed to have flown several times in his own powered aircraft in 1901-02, dates that preceded the Wright brothers flights in December 1903. Whitehead's claims were supported by a contemporary eyewitness newspaper article, sworn affidavits from the 1930s and later, and by research from the 1930s to the present / OR/ from the 1930s to the 1990s. The claims have been examined and repeatedly dismissed by mainstream aviation historians, especially those associated with the Smithsonian Institution."


 * It's true that academic researchers dismiss the newspaper report and the affidavits, but those are the major pieces of evidence that support the GW claims, so I can understand briefly mentioning them in the lead.


 * I would also drop the word "designs" in the earlier sentence and just say: "his own powered aircraft before the Wright brothers...." The sentence before that already explains that he "designed and built..." DonFB (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with dropping "designs". However, the affidavits are a confused bunch, with details that conflict with each other, and the "eyewitness" newspaper account is more likely to have been fabricated. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, those are the views of the mainstream, but the article still discusses the evidence in quite a bit of detail. So the question is whether it's reasonable to briefly mention the most noteworthy evidence in the summary intro before diving into the details later. DonFB (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Above comment was mistakenly marked "minor". DonFB (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I think DonFB should write the lead paragraph. Let's see what he makes of it. As the first paragraph ends with that what is mentioned before the end is dismissed in the end the part before the dismissal must be substantial enough to be worthy of a dismissal.

That was the problem with the long paragraph after the first paragraph too. The pro-Whitehead material mentioned in the beginning was so thin that the first sentence about dismissal sounded strange. Why would so little substance need a dismissal? When I moved both Whitehead-supporting parts together it became substantial enough to be worthy of a dismissal. And that long paragraph became a lot easier to read also, because the structure became "for for - against against" instead of "for against for against".Roger491127 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not answered WP:MOSBEGIN, Roger. The first paragraph must set up the context. Here are the things that must be in first paragraph, for context:
 * Whitehead said he flew his manned powered airplane several times in 1901–1903, and there are other reports saying the same thing.
 * This would be before the Wright brothers flew in December '03, making the Whitehead claim an extraordinary one, that he was first to fly a manned powered airplane.
 * This claim has been examined and dismissed by mainstream aviation historians. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of having missed something, and does it really matter? I agree with what you say above and I have given DonFB free hands to formulate the lead paragraph as he likes. If there is something I think is very wrong about it I will tell you about it. About the need to point out that Whitehead's claimed flights preceeded the Wrights: Maybe it is right to point it out, but it also seems unnecessary. An old friend I have not seen in 30 years visited me yesterday. He is one of the few Swedes who refuse to use modern technology. He has no cell phone, no microwave oven, no computer and he knows nothing about internet. But if I ask him who invented the airplane he will say, without a second of hesitation, the Wright brothers in 1903. That fact has been so hammered into our brains all through our school years, and in many American shows and movies in television. 70-80% of all content in our tv-channels is produced in USA. Roger491127 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I now looked at the two latest versions of the lead. DonFB's version was fairly good. Binksternets version is a complete disaster. For the moment I support DonFB's version which is at least good enough as a starting point for continued discussions, so I revert the last changes to DonFB's version. Roger491127 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, your "complete disaster" is exactly what is prescribed by WP:MOSBEGIN. You don't like it because it immediately puts down the argument in favor of Whitehead, making it more difficult to convince the reader. This is the mainstream position, though. The article cannot be used to try and tell the reader that the mainstream position is wrong, and that Whitehead flew—basically everything you are here for. Your POV reversion cannot stand. The MOSBEGIN lead section answers much better. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The pro-Whitehead position must be established with reasonable substance before a dismissal becomes reasonable. I will take an extreme example to explain it to you: The 12 year old teenager Alex sent a note to a newspaper in which he claimed that he had built an airplane driven by a rubberband motor and that he had flown it from New York to London, Britain. The Smithsonian institution, NASA and the president of USA immediately dismissed this claim as untrue.

If people read that they must wonder why these institutions felt a need to dismiss such a thin claim.

That's why the pro-Whitehead position must be established with enough substance, his own claims, the support from an eyewitness journalist article, and a number of affidavits supporting his flights, what evidence there is which makes some people believe that his claims were true, before it becomes reasonable that very authoritative institutions like the Smithsonian and famous aviation historians like Gibbs-Smith would have some reason to dismiss this claim. And the dismissal by these authorities should include their main reasons to dismiss the claim, for example: Gibbs-Smith wrote that the newspaper article by Dick Howell sounded like a juvenile fantasy and he also pointed out that the journalist waited four days before he published the article, which is a suspicious behavior.

We owe it to the reader to present the strongest arguments and evidence which support the Whitehead claims, and the strongest arguments and evidence which support the dismissal of these claims. Roger491127 (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Your wish to establish "the pro-Whitehead position" before telling the reader that mainstream aviation historians dismiss the claim is against the guideline WP:MOSBEGIN. What you want is to have Whitehead look really good before the nay-sayers come along and quash the topic. Unfortunately for you, the mainstream scholarly thought is the context of the article, and MOSBEGIN requires us to supply the context in the first paragraph. That translates to this: the article must struggle uphill against the mainstream wind to argue for Whitehead. Such a struggle precisely follows WP:NPOV, especially the WP:WEIGHT and WP:VALID subsections. In short, you will not be happy if this article complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I am insisting that it complies. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I Don't mind if we reverse the order, so the article starts with a strong dismissal and then continues with what is dismissed, but I still insist that both the dismissal must be presented with all the strongest arguments and evidence put forward by the dismissers, and then follows all the strongest arguments and evidence for Whitehead's flights. The reader has the right to be informed about all the best arguments and evidence presented by both sides. Ultimately it is not our task to tell the reader what to think, our task is to present both sides in a controversy as well as possible, and leave the final judgment to the reader. Roger491127 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The article could start with a very short description of Whitehead, because this article is about him. Then it can continue like this:

In 1945 Orville Wright wrote this about Whitehead: summarized content of his article.

Gibbs-Smith, a giant in the field of aviation history, knighted for his expertise in early aviation history, a Lindbergh Chair senior scholar, Lindbergh Chair, the USA's top aviation scholar position, wrote this about Whitehead: Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 207–208.
 * Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6

In 1969 Gibbs-Smith performed a year of in-depth research about all of the early aviators during his year as the Lindbergh Chair. In 1970 he published his results, based on a great variety of sources including Stella Randolph's book with its conflicting affidavits. Gibbs-Smith wrote down his new and original conclusions in his book, Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II, on pages 291–292. He was not impressed with Whitehead, who "discarded" the notional "acetylene wonder engine" of 1901 for his 1902 machine, who made extraordinary claims for substantial achievement in flight, the claims printed in major publications, but who "continued to work in comparative obscurity, building a variety of aircraft and engines with little success." Gibbs-Smith expects that any true flight success would have been accompanied by worldly success. Gibbs-Smith examined a copy of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald (he uses all three words in the name) and he wrote, "The account of the flight on 14 August 1901 in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald reads like a work of juvenile fiction..." One can hardly be more dismissive. Here's Gibbs-Smith riffing on Whitehead's lack of direction: The acetylene wonder engine was discarded for the flights of January 1902: Whitehead stated that the aircraft used then was similar to his previous machine, but powered by a 40-hp five-cylinder engine fuelled by kerosene. Then both engines and the "successful" monoplane were abandoned, for his next aircraft was a triplane glider clearly based on Chanute's designs, to which he fitted a 12-hp two-cylinder kerosene engine with hot-bulb ignition. A single "flight" of 350 metres on this machine was reported in Scientific American of 19 September 1903. Then in December 1905 he applied for a patent, in partnership with Stanley Y. Beach, on a monoplane hang-glider quite different from any of his previous aircraft. This was built in 1906, with a four-wheeled open car underneath on which the pilot stood, and towed flights behind Beach's car were made. About the end of the year a three-cylinder 15-hp engine was fitted, but there are no reliable reports of flights. Then a large biplane with a 40-hp four-cylinder engine driving two out-rigged propellers was exhibited in unfinished state by the New York Aeronautic Society in November 1908, and failed to fly when tested in the following year; and finally Whitehead's last attempt to fly was a bizarre helicopter with 60 lifting screws in 1911–12. Such a career of retrogression from the successes of 1901 and 1902 is surely inexplicable; the simplest conclusion must be that those flights of ½ mile, 2 miles and 7½ miles were flights of fancy.

And after we have presented the arguments and evidence put forward by Orville Wright and Gibbs-Smith we present the arguments and evidence put forward by the researchers who thought there are very good arguments and evidence which support Whitehead's flights. This will look very much like the article today, but we can delete all instances of dismissal because all the dismissal arguments have been presented in the first part of the article. Roger491127 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No way, Roger. We are an encyclopedia; we summarize. We do not write out all the arguments at length.
 * Also, we follow WP:WEIGHT in giving the mainstream viewpoint the upper hand. We do not try to set an artificial balance between minor viewpoints and mainstream viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my suggestion and subsequent comments (above in this section) for modifying the Introduction. When writing, I overlooked the fact that the recent major revision to the Intro already included the items I mentioned: the newspaper article and the affidavits. DonFB (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To Binksternet: I am not suggesting we should "try to set an artificial balance between minor viewpoints and mainstream viewpoints". I just say we should give reader the arguments and evidence of both sides in this controversy. And as you seem to think that the arguments and evidence of Orville Wright and Gibbs-Smith are so much stronger and compelling than the pro-Whitehead researcher's arguments and evidence you have nothing to worry about. The reader will probably draw the same conclusions as you. Or don't you believe in the overwhelming power of Orville Wright's and Gibbs-Smith's arguments and evidence? I only demand that we give the reader the best arguments and evidence of both sides in this controversy, so the reader has access to the best arguments and evidence of both sides. It is not our task to tell the reader what to think, we should give the reader the best arguments and evidence of both sides. And if you believe so strongly in Orville Wright's and Gibbs-Smith's arguments and evidence you have nothing to worry about.

By the way, did Gibbs-Smith ever admit his mistake to copy Orville Wright's argument based on the delay of four days in publishing this news article and excuse himself for not having done even the most elementary research, discovering that BH was a weekly newspaper, before copying Orville Wright's argument about the delay in publishing. It is kind of damaging to his reputation as a world-class historian that he didn't even do the most elementary research of what he writes in 1960. And it is even more damaging if he never admitted his mistake and retracted what he wrote in the 1960 book. It is actually expected from honest historians that they admit earlier mistakes and retract what they have published when they find out that they were wrong. Roger491127 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted another mistake in Gibbs-Smith's 1960 book: "an American named Gustave Whitehead". He was German, not American.

Another formulation: "incapable of solving the complex problems involved, especially that of a suitable engine". That is a very questionable formulation, considering that many experts in the field, the Witteman brothers, Hargrave, Chanute, Dvorak before their conflict, etc.. said he was a very good engine builder. Could a totally incompetent engineer build a motor so powerful that it flipped a whole boat upside-down when the driver pushed the gas regulator handle too hard?

And this:""Unfortunately, some of those who advanced his claims were more intent on discrediting the Wright brothers than on establishing facts. The whole deplorable story is told in the notes (on pages 1165–1167) to The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright"

This is about Albert Zahm, isn't it? We now know that Stella Randolph didn't like Zahm, she felt like Zahm wanted to use her, and she did all she could to avoid him. So Gibbs-Smith was wrong about Stella Randolph's intentions. Again, he did not do any research of his own, he simply copied what Orville Wright had written.

The only sign of Gibbs-Smith's own research I can find is that he says that Howell's article in Bridgeport Herald sounds like "juvenile fiction" which seems to indicate that he had actually read the article. But he seems to be unaware of the fact that Howell was one of the oldest and most experienced of the journalists at the Bridgeport Herald, and that he became the chief editor of Bridgeport Herald only a few years after he wrote that article in 1901. I have read an article about boxing published by Howell in 1896, and he sounds very experienced and serious in that article. Roger491127 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You cannot question Gibbs-Smith's research yourself. You must find reliable sources which question Gibbs-Smith's research. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's time to give up. There is a majority of wp editors here who have a certain agenda, and it doesn't matter what I say. It is just surprising how easy it is to pick Gibbs-Smith apart. A highly decorated and respected aviation historian can be peeled off layer by layer like an onion, until nothing is left. Roger491127 (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unmanned flights
Should there be a section on his experiments with unmanned flight? I've inserted some content about reported unmanned flights in May 1901. But, the location is kind of clunky because it appears after his claimed manned flight of 14 August 1901.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The unmanned flights are not so very important to the topic. I think the unmanned flights are sufficiently covered in a chronological fashion, and that they do not need to have their own section. Because Whitehead's unmanned flight experiments alternate with his supposed/fictional manned flights, if a section were created for them its chronology would be choppy and difficult. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Authorship
I have been able to locate where in the archives of this discussion page Carroll F. Gray talked DonFB into writing about the lack of a signature on Howell's article in Bridgeport Herald:

"To promote discussion, I'll explain my thinking on this matter of Richard Howell being the author of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article. Since nothing has come to light indicating that Richard Howell ever claimed the article (or the drawing) as his own, it is an assumption. Randolph and O'Dwyer don't offer substantiation of their attributions. The reason this is important, I believe, is that Howell was a respected member of the press in Bridgeport, and had a responsible position as Editor. To assume that he wrote and illustrated the article lends credence to the article and drawing beyond what the article and drawing themselves inherently have. Assuming Howell was the source makes the article more believable, yet, was he the source ? So, to remain strictly neutral about the 18 August 1901 article, we should not spread that unfounded (as of now) assumption that he was. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC) This raises an interesting point I hadn't thought about before, namely: If Howell was as respected as some sources say he was, an article such as this could call into question his credibility and hurt his reputation. So that leaves room for people to speculate that he would not have written such a thing, or that if he did, he may have deliberately kept his name off the article (and drawing) to protect his reputation. As much as it's fun to talk about this stuff, we'll certainly never be able to make a determination, and all that matters in terms of this article is what the sources say....or don't say. It's our job, naturally, to present what the sources say/don't say as neutrally as possible. But, as editors, we're not going to decide the issue. DonFB (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed, yes, that was what I had in mind. Had he written it and then shied away from ownership of it that would be very meaningful to know - but is probably unknowable at this late date, and, besides, not fit work for Wiki editors, in any event. If we appear to accept that Howell was the author and artist then we're, in effect, taking sides and supporting the pro-Whitehead position. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Hmm, that's an interesting formulation that would not have occurred to me. Until you pointed out the lack of byline and the Stella/O'Dwyer attribution to Howell, I never gave the authorship a 2nd thought. But neither did I think the article was leaning pro-Whitehead because the text credited Howell unquestioningly as the writer. He was just a name. So you seem to be saying that because he was, in fact, so reputable and credible, the simple fact of his authorship would weigh heavily in favor of Whitehead. DonFB (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Yup, which is why it is so important, it seems to me, to consider precisely what the sources say - if we're to remain neutral. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)"

Note that none of these wp editors have realized that not even a single article was signed by an author, not in that issue, and not in many issues before and after that issue. So there is nothing strange about the lack of a signature on that article, it was the general police of Bridgeport Herald in those days. And there are no sources outside wikipedia which question or even make any reservations about Dick Howell as the author of the article and the originator of the drawing. So note the reasoning above between Carroll F. Gray and DonFB, which results in an agreement that pointing out that the article lacked a signature would help to discredit Whitehead. Note this sentence: "Until you pointed out the lack of byline and the Stella/O'Dwyer attribution to Howell, I never gave the authorship a 2nd thought. But neither did I think the article was leaning pro-Whitehead because the text credited Howell unquestioningly as the writer. He was just a name. So you seem to be saying that because he was, in fact, so reputable and credible, the simple fact of his authorship would weigh heavily in favor of Whitehead. DonFB"

So it is obvious that these two wp editors agreed to start question the authorship of Dick Howell to discredit Whitehead, based on Original Research, not based on any sources outside wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My intention is to describe what the sources say and show, not to "discredit" Whitehead. I endeavor to be a neutral editor, unlike yourself, as you bring a fanatical POV to the work, with such personal conclusions as "prove beyond a reasonable doubt." The outside sources (Randolph and O'Dwyer) say that Howell was the author; the outside primary source shows no byline. These facts are described neutrally by the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I request, for the 2nd time, that you read the supplementary essay, "[[WP:USEPRIMARY|

Identifying and using primary and secondary sources]]," with particular attention to section 5. DonFB (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read it and it is obvious that you are not using this primary source carefully. If you did you would notice that no articles were signed during that period of Bridgeport Herald, so there is nothing strange in the lack of a byline of this article, so there is no reason to point it out, except if you are thinking that Howell's good reputation is a support for Whitehead's flight, and the lack of a byline can be used to question who wrote that article, to decrease the belief in the veracity of the article, just as Carroll F. Gray pointed out to you in the conversation above. When all sources outside wikipedia are saying that Dick Howell was the journalist who wrote the article and made the drawing it is a way to change the official history writing if a wp editor starts question Howell's authorship, contrary to all outside sources, and it is a way to start to spread new formulations, like "widely attributed to", "unsigned article", "no byline" etc.. You know just as well as I that Dick Howell wrote that article and made the drawing. And we know it with even more confidence after we read that O'Dwyer read hundreds of Dick Howell's articles and studied his drawings to see how reliable Dick Howell is as a journalist and how precise his drawings are. If somebody else had written that article and made that drawing O'Dwyer would definitely have noticed it. Roger491127 (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you are allowed to use primary sources, but very carefully, then I am allowed to do it too. I have, like O'Dwyer, studied many articles written by Dick Howell and I have studied his drawings, and my conclusion is that his drawings are made with a style nobody else at Bridgeport Herald in those days could copy, there is no doubt that the drawing was made by Howell. And his style of writing articles is also fully consistent with the article about Whitehead's morning flight August 14, 1901. But I am careful with my research of primary sources and will not mention my research in the article. As I see it both your observation that the article lacked a byline and my research of Howell's drawings and articles is Original Research, and there is no need to mention it when we have so many sources outside wp which consistently, and without reservations, name Howell as the originator of the article and the drawing.

The wikipedia rule which says that wikipedia is supposed to report what sources outside wikipedia say is a much more important rule than the "supplementary essay", "Identifying and using primary and secondary sources which must be used very carefully and only in exceptional cases. This is not such an exceptional case. Roger491127 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The author is not very important. Gibbs-Smith says the article reads like juvenile fiction; he dismisses it entirely. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read "Identifying and using primary and secondary sources," with particular attention to section 5, more carefully now and I cannot find anything in it which supports DonFB's mention of a lack of byline. On the contrary, it says:

"An article about a painting: The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any educated person can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's Cow Skull: Red, White, and Blue, and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation"

So, as I interpret this, we can use Howell's article, but "It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation", which is exactly what DonFB is trying to do here. "any other matters of analysis" is the formulation which is most relevant to what Carroll Gray and DonFB are trying to do here. Roger491127 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And another thing, DonFB, you write "you bring a fanatical POV to the work, with such personal conclusions as "prove beyond a reasonable doubt."" about me. I think that is very unfair. I have said that after studying this controversy for years I think Weissenborn and O'Dwyer are right in their conclusion, but I do not try to color the article with my view. On the contrary, I think we should present the arguments of both sides as well and accurately as possible, so the reader can draw his own conclusions. That is a fair and neutral treatment of this controversy. Roger491127 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's proper that you admitted your research is original. In contrast, describing the primary source's lack of a byline and describing that outside sources attribute authorship to a reporter is entirely appropriate research under Wikipedia's rules. In the GW article, no analysis or interpretation is given when stating those facts. You're doing all the analysis and interpretation with claims like: "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"; "my conclusion"; "no doubt"; "fully consistent". The essay I referred you to does not limit use of primary sources to exceptional cases. That's a fiction you invented. The essay also uses an example of a "proclamation" to make the rules clear: "The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in blackletter calligraphy, whether it is signed..." Regarding unfairness, I think it is unfair that you consistently try to slant this article to your well-known fanatical POV by, among other things, repeatedly deleting properly sourced material. DonFB (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The essay you referred me to says that you can use the content of the article, but you are not allowed to do any analysis or evaluation of the newspaper page, like pointing out that somebody has added a row of witches flying on broomsticks at the top of the page, or the lack of a byline, both details can have been added or subtracted by the layout people or the printer of the newspaper. Only the content of the article and the drawing can be used in wikipedia. If you start analysing the layout of the page you are doing Original Research. "It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation" Roger491127 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found now the paragraph you refer to: "An article about the conquest of the hypothetical country above: The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in blackletter calligraphy, whether it is signed or has an official seal, and what words, dates, or names were on it. Anyone should be able to look at an image of the proclamation and see that it was all written on one page, whether it used that style of calligraphy, and so forth. However, the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors."


 * Note the last sentence: "However, the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors." This sentence tells you that you are not allowed to get into issues pertaining to authenticity, etc.. And this is not a Proclamation by some historically important person like a pope or a king, so if it is signed or not is not an issue this rule is intended for. Especially in this case, when multiple secondary sources have said that the author is Dick Howell we have to report what the secondary sources say about this article. As a wp editor you cannot get involved in the issue of authenticity, when all secondary sources have already decided the issue of authenticity over a period of at least 70 years. Roger491127 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, continual rehashing of old issues is not helping the article. We decided this already—we are going to say that the newspaper article is widely attributed to a certain reporter. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That you are supporting this doesn't surprise me, neither does the fact that you are contradicting yourself. You just wrote that "The author is not very important." But that DonFB has the audacity to continue to argue for this surprises me after I dug up the conversation which started the issue. The conversation between Carroll Gray and DonFB at the beginning of this section makes it very clear that the intention and only reason to question Dick Howell's authorship is to discredit Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are free to believe that Wikipedia's inclusion of a simple but important and referenced historical fact serves to "discredit" GW. That is your analysis. More significantly, your positon on the matter raises the interesting question of why you would make such a fuss if a historical fact gives "credit" or "discredit" to GW. As a supposedly neutral editor (haha), you are obligated to regard a possible plus or a possible minus to GW with equal indifference, as long as the fact is supported with a reference to a reliable source. Furthermore, it is irrational to believe that reporting this fact constitutes "analysis" or "evaluation" of the content of the newspaper article. In addition, the GW article does not discuss or mention the issue of the newspaper article's authenticity. That is an imagined problem in your mind alone.
 * I'm glad Carroll raised the issue of the news report's authorship. He brought up an important matter which this article had failed to consider. In any case, the GW article correctly explains, with references, that outside secondary sources attribute the news article to a specific reporter, and the GW article allows readers to understand the reason for giving the cited attributions by informing them, with an appropriate reference to a primary source, that the newspaper article itself does not identify its own author. DonFB (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, it was Carroll Gray's analysis. You held on to sound principles of wikipedia almost all the way to the end of the conversation, like this: "As much as it's fun to talk about this stuff, we'll certainly never be able to make a determination, and all that matters in terms of this article is what the sources say....or don't say. It's our job, naturally, to present what the sources say/don't say as neutrally as possible. But, as editors, we're not going to decide the issue. DonFB"

But then you mysteriously changed your mind and decided that it was okay for editors to decide the issue. The conversation above is very revealing, actually. Roger491127 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. The determination/decision we could not and should not make was who the author was. The correct decision was to avoid making an assumption about authorship and to include information in the article about the attributions and the lack of a byline. DonFB (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's time for me to give up on this issue. You obviously won't give up and admit that you should have continued to report what sources say instead of doing OR and make wp change the history. As long as wp in English is dominated by people who are intent on preserving and protecting the most popular American myths, like who invented the airplane, it is useless to protest against the majority of wp editors. The best I can do is to leave enough information in the talk page archives so wp editors in the future, when patriotic Americans are just a small minority of English-speaking editors, can replace the American myths with a more neutral version. By the way, when I investigated how MiszaBot I archives talk pages with different time periods I looked at a number of talk pages and their history, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aerodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wright_brothers.  MiszaBot I has not touched this talk page at all. oldest thread ended March 2009 and is still left at the talk page. I also noted that DonFB is the most active defender of Wright brothers. I haven't been enough interested in WB earlier, so this is the first time I read this talk page. Until I read what you write on the Wright brothers talk page I thought you were a fairly neutral, but mysteriously stubborn editor on this talk page. Roger491127 (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article does indeed report exactly what the sources (Randolph, O'Dwyer) say. They say who wrote the newspaper report, because the newspaper itself does not say. History has not been changed. This article gives very full expression to the arguments and evidence in favor of GW, so I don't know what you want to "protest". The relevant myths for you to recognize are: you know the "truth"; you're "neutral"; you respect the principles of Wikipedia. DonFB (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

History has definitely been tampered with, by you, who has used wikipedia to spread new expressions like "The article did not carry a byline.", "According to an unsigned[9] Bridgeport Herald eyewitness newspaper article", "widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell". Such formulations had never been used by any sources before 2 October 2010 when you and Carroll Gray decided to write about the lacking byline, because it would discredit Whitehead. It is very obvious from your discussion that day what the intent was for doing this. And you are not satisfied by writing only one formulation about this, you write three formulations which point this out, to be sure that nobody misses it, and to amplify it's importance. Before you started to spread these formulations we could read, for example this: "Bridgeport Herald sports reporter Dick Howell wrote the eyewitness account and drew a sketch showing the airplane in flight". And it only took me a few seconds on google to find this formulation. Roger491127 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem entirely unaware that Wikipedia articles are not static. They change and improve and include better and more accurate information as time goes on, which means the text can change. The only "history" that has "changed" is the history of this Wikipedia article. The article is also spreading this "new expression":


 * "Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them from about 1897 to 1911."


 * I'm sure that "formulation" was never used before, but it's accurate and based on sources, just like the wording which tells readers about the authorship attributions and the absence of a byline. Perhaps you can explain why GW suffers "discredit" if readers of this article are aware that the newspaper report has no byline. By your logic, GW was discredited the day the newspaper report was originally published, because everyone in the public who read it could see that it had no byline. DonFB (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to explain why GW suffers "discredit" if readers of this article are aware that the newspaper report has no byline. Carroll Gray did that so well in the discussion with you which you can read at the beginning of this section.

Everyone in the public who read it knew it was written by Dick Howell because it was published on his sports page, and everybody recognized his typical kind of drawing.

And there is nothing strange about a lack of a byline. Read that whole issue and you will notice that not a single article has a byline. Read the issues before and after this issue and you will still find no bylines on any articles. Roger491127 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether it is "strange". The point is that the newspaper displays no documentary identification of the author of the report. Responsible editing of this article therefore informs readers that secondary sources attributed authorship to a particular person. Typical of your unencyclopedic approach to editing this article are the sweeping and unsourced assumptions that you so casually make: "Everyone in the public who read it knew it was written by Dick Howell because it was published on his sports page, and everybody recognized his typical kind of drawing." I see. You know what everyone knew a hundred years ago, and that's your justification for wanting to write the article a certain way.


 * The earlier discussion you're referring to correctly points out that this article should not take a position or make an assumption about who the author was. But that's exactly what you want to do, because you think doing so will avoid "discredit" to GW. As a neutral Wikipedia editor (if you were), it's none of your business whether any given fact is a "credit" or a "discredit" to the subject of an article. An editor's job is to give information that's properly weighted and reliably sourced and let readers decide if they think the information is a credit or discredit. It's not your job to steer the article by withholding, ignoring or deleting such information. DonFB (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know what all secondary sources which have referred to this article for 110 years have said. Those that name the originator of the article and the drawing are all saying, without any reservations, that it was Dick Howell. Those sources are what you should refer to in wikipedia, instead of doing OR and start spreading three new formulations about the authorship of this article. Roger491127 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you "give information that's properly weighted and reliably sourced" that information must say that the author and artist was Dick Howell, because that is what all the sources say. It is not your job to change the history writing based on original research. Roger491127 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And this is not about what I want to do. I was perfectly happy with the earlier formulation, which was based on all the sources which named Dick Howell as the originator. This is about what Carroll Gray and you want to do, and it is obvious, both what and why you two want to do, from the discussion between you two which you can read at the beginning of this section. Roger491127 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And if you want to do original research you should at least do it well, as I did. I read through every page of that issue of BH, and 4-5 issues before and after it, and I found no bylines on any article. If you had done that you would have realized that the lack of a byline on that article in that issue was not an exception but rather followed a policy in BH during that period. Roger491127 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources that name the author do not date back 110 years. The first secondary source appears to be Randolph in the mid 1930s. Read the article. It does what you want: it names the author based on the sources. No original research is involved. I'm not arguing what policy the newspaper had; the GW article must still depend on secondary sources to identify the author. That's what it does. DonFB (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have made some changes but I can still find at least two expressions which are not referenced correctly: "The article did not carry a byline." and "widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell," If you try to reference either of them to the photocopy I must tell you that it is a false reference. I have read through that page very carefully, and nowhere on the page could I find the formulation "The article did not carry a byline." or any formulation like it. Correct references for these formulations must contain these formulations. Roger491127 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You still don't seem to understand how Wikipedia is written, so let me help you. Most of the encylopedia is written in the words of its editors, not as direct quotations. As stated in the essay WP:PARAPHRASE, "use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article." Or, as you like to call it: "formulations". For example, the GW article says: "These researchers have spent years studying Whitehead and firmly believe that he made powered flights before 1903." I'm not aware of a specific reference for that "formulation," but it accurately and fairly describes the situation, just as "widely attributed" accurately and fairly describes that situation. Furthermore, I have already explained that Wikipedia policy allows reference to a primary source in order to describe a document or image, if the editor makes no analysis or evaluation of the source. DonFB (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What formulation in the photocopy did you paraphrase to get to "The article did not carry a byline."? Roger491127 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting myself (see just above): "I have already explained that Wikipedia policy allows reference to a primary source in order to describe a document or image, if the editor makes no analysis or evaluation of the source." DonFB (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pointing out that the article lacked a byline certainly falls under "analysis of the source." Roger491127 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is a simple descriptive statement. DonFB (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the source for that "descriptive statement"? Roger491127 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in the Reference list. DonFB (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can not find any formulation in the Photocopy of Bridgeport Herald, August 18, 1901 which even remotely looks like "This article is unsigned" or "this article lacks a byline" or "widely attributed to Dick Howell", so you can not refer to that photocopy as the source for any of these formulations. If you have invented these formulations yourself you can only use your own eyes, your own brain and your own logic as the source for these formulations. And that is called OR. Roger491127 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be truthful and honest you could write in the article: "The wikipedia editor DonFb noted that the article about Whitehead's flight 14 August, 1901 lacked a byline. The wikipedia editor Roger491127 studied that whole issue of Bridgeport Herald, and 4 issues before it and 4 issues after it and reported that he could not find any article which was signed by an author."

But you know as well as me that we can not write that in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules say that we can quote or summarize what secondary sources say, and sometimes what primary sources say, but we are not allowed to report our own observations or our own analysis of sources. Roger491127 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As we can not present our observations in a straightforward and honest way, like this: "The wikipedia editor DonFb noted that the article about Whitehead's flight 14 August, 1901 lacked a byline. The wikipedia editor Roger491127 studied that whole issue of Bridgeport Herald, and 4 issues before it and 4 issues after it and reported that he could not find any article which was signed by an author." we should not try to find a loophole or some roundabout way to get our observations into the article. And another thing. If you find a loophole or some roundabout way to get your observation into the article I will use the same loophole or roundabout way to get my observations into the article, and my observations will nullify your observation. because if no articles in BH were signed during this period there is nothing strange or noteworthy in your observation.

All secondary sources which name the author of this article call him, without reservations, Dick Howell. The only exception is Stella Randolph who called him Richard Howell. I have seen an article about boxing from 1896 which is signed Dick Howell. But that signature was not written with normal letters. It looked more like a stamp. A rectangular area which had a net of lines, the name was in white, like holes in the lined background. I have seen no photos in any issue of BH, which indicates that BH did not have access to rasterizing technology. All illustrations were drawings or stamp-like figures. Roger491127 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find some article about the history of newspaper printing, more specifically about rasterization of photos, and when that technology became available to newspapers. The best article I found in wikipedia is Halftone. It was invented in the latter half of the 19th century, and it seems reasonable to assume that small (weekly) newspapers in 1901, like BH, still did not have access to that technology, which explains the lack of photos in BH at that time. So the printers only had access to letters, drawings and stamp-like figures. So the presence of flying witches at the top of the page should not be seen as some kind of statement about the veracity of the article, it is more an indication of what symbols related to flying the printer had access to.

And remember that the process of producing a newspaper is a two-stage process. A journalist writes an article and sends it in to the newspaper. Then the layout guys and the printers create a layout, and their task is to make every page as eye-catching and sensational as possible. It often happens that a journalist is upset over what the layout guys have done to his article. Maybe Howell scolded the layout guys and said, you idiots, what have you done to my article? Why did you put that row of flying witches above my article? And the layout guys said, well, we didn't have any other symbols related to flying and we thought it was funny. Such things happened in 1901 as well as it happens in millions of newspapers today. Roger491127 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I refer you again to WP:USINGPRIMARY, which says, "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements...", and uses the example of a primary source "proclamation" to explain that an editor is allowed to describe "whether it is signed or has an official seal, and what words, dates, or names were on it." This means an editor does not have to use a secondary source to describe a primary source. I refer you again to WP:PARAPHRASE, which says, "use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article." DonFB (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is not a policy or guideline itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USINGPRIMARY While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Note extra much: "Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."

But this is a very important policy document: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Note extra much: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." That is exactly what you are doing when you point out the lack of a byline, that makes wikipedia itself a primary source of that material. And you use the same "personal experience" not only once but twice or three times in different formulations, which makes it even worse.

More from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE is not applicable at all in this case, because there is no formulation in that source which you can paraphrase into "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ...". Roger491127 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Personal experience" would be, for example, talking to someone or interviewing someone. Reading or looking at secondary or primary sources and describing the content is not that kind of prohibited "personal experience"; if it were, Wikipedia could not exist. The absent byline is verified by viewing the cited reliable source; thus, no OR exists. WP:PARAPHRASE says, "rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure." The "Paraphrase" in the essay's title does not denote that every sentence in Wikipedia must be a paraphrase of some source's identifiable "formulation". In fact, the purpose of the essay is to help editors avoid inadvertent plagarism and copyright violation. DonFB (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This sentence "WP:PARAPHRASE says, "rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure."" can not be understood in any other way than that it is about how you are allowed to handle "a body of information", in this case the article and the drawing. You are allowed to "rephrase or summarize a body of information in your own words and sentence structure.". You can "rephrase or summarize" the content of the article.

But you can not make your own observations, like note that the article lacks a byline, that is original research. If you write about that wikipedia becomes a primary source of that information, and new expressions which have never before been used, like "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ..." are spread by wikipedia in spite of the fact that no other source have spread those formulations before.

In the secondary sources which talk about this article there are two groups: 1: Those that say that Dick Howell is the author of the article and the originator of the drawing, and they do this without any reservations, no formulations like "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ...". You can follow the example of those sources and say that Dick Howell is the author of the article and the originator of the drawing. 2: Those that talk about the article without naming the author. You can do as those sources and describe the content without naming the author.

No source outside wp has noticed the lack of a byline and used formulations like "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ..." so you can not use any of these formulations. Remember: "The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material" Roger491127 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source which noted the lack of a byline and used formulations like "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ..." before Carroll Gray suggested this idea to you, you can quote, summarize or paraphrase that source. But there is no such source. Roger491127 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As verified by an image of the primary source, a writer's name does not appear. Wikipedia gives that straightfoward description, with no analysis, as allowed by policy. Wikipedia further summarizes that secondary sources attribute authorship to a specific person, whose identity is not shown by reference to the image of the primary source. DonFB (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And remember that this idea was suggested by Carroll Gray to discredit Whitehead, but he expressed it a little more carefully: "To promote discussion, I'll explain my thinking on this matter of Richard Howell being the author of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article. Since nothing has come to light indicating that Richard Howell ever claimed the article (or the drawing) as his own, it is an assumption. Randolph and O'Dwyer don't offer substantiation of their attributions. The reason this is important, I believe, is that Howell was a respected member of the press in Bridgeport, and had a responsible position as Editor. To assume that he wrote and illustrated the article lends credence to the article and drawing beyond what the article and drawing themselves inherently have. Assuming Howell was the source makes the article more believable, yet, was he the source ? So, to remain strictly neutral about the 18 August 1901 article, we should not spread that unfounded (as of now) assumption that he was. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have warned you before about listening to Carroll F. Gray, knowing very well what agenda he has, and the strange logic he is prepared to use to reach his goals. You only have to read his own web page about Whitehead to see that he is prepared to use whatever way he comes to think of to discredit Whitehead. He is the only person I have ever heard of who suggests that "the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." Roger491127 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Carroll F. Gray did not understand the most basic rules of wikipedia, like "everything you write must be referenced to a source". He thought we could make up our own ideas and publish them, and this is only one of the ideas he came up with and thought we could publish, in spite of the fact that no source ever used any of the formulations "the article lacked a byline", "unsigned", or "widely attributed to ..." Roger491127 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)