Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 15

First disputed manned motorized flight
If the info box is going to say "disputed" about the first flight, there is no reason to set the year to 1901. The first disputed flight happened in 1899. Darvarich told the whole story in his affidavit, and fireman Martin Devane corroborates the latter part of Darvarich's affidavit. http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/daravich.html and http://www.deepsky.com/~firstflight/Pages/devine.html. An earlier version of this section in the article was formulated like this:

"According to a witness who gave his report in 1934, Whitehead made a very early motorized flight of about half a mile in Pittsburgh in April or May 1899. Louis Darvarich, a friend of Whitehead's, said they flew together at a height of 20 to 25 ft (6 to 8 m) in a steam-powered monoplane aircraft and crashed into a three-story building. Darvarich said he was stoking the boiler and was badly scalded in the accident, requiring several weeks in a hospital.[1]

The fireman, Martin Devane, who was called to the scene of the accident reported: "...I believe I arrived immediately after it crashed into a brick building, a newly constructed apartment house on the O'Neal Estate. I recall that someone was hurt and taken to the hospital. I am able to identify the inventor Gustave Whitehead from a picture shown to me".[2][3][4]Because of this incident, Whitehead was forbidden to do any more flight experiments in Pittsburgh, so he moved to Bridgeport" I recommend removing the words "very early" from this section. 1901 is as much "very early" as 1899 seen from a perspective of today, 113 years later. We do not automatically add the expression "very early" to all dates before 1970, or 1932 or 1892 or 1750, etc..

If this had happened 20 years before 1901 the words "very early" could be motivated, but 1899 was only 2 years before 1901, so there is no reason for the words "very early".

And the First disputed manned motorized flight described in the article happened in 1899, so that should be the date of the First disputed manned motorized flight in the info-box too. The article explains that the First disputed manned motorized flights he is most known for happened in the summer 1901, especially the flights August 14, because they had most witnesses, so the year 1899 in the info-box is not confusing in any way for the reader. It is actually more confusing for the reader if the info-box says that his first disputed manned motorized flight happened in 1901 but the article describes a first disputed manned motorized flight in 1899. Roger491127 (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This section must be restored to include both witnesses. With only one witness this is just a story which could be a pure fantasy, but with a second witness who corroborates the second half of the affidavit of the first witness it becomes a story which is much more believable. So putting back the affidavit of Martin Devane is necessary for this section. To remove the second witness from a story which has only two witnesses is pure sabotage. Roger491127 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No Photograph of Whitehead in Bridgeport Herald Aug 1901
Do we have to include this statement; "No photographs were taken for the article"? Since it was 1901 and while it was possible by 1897 to reproduce halftone photographs on printing presses running at full speed. Despite these innovations, limitations remained, and many newspaper stories in the period from 1897 to 1927 were illustrated with engravings. The Bridgeport Herald chose to send an artist.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because there is a photo of GW on the Herald page, the wording of this article could be modified to state that no photo was taken of the aircraft during its reported flight. I think it's important for the article to explicitly state that no photo was taken of the experiments. People who already know about GW or want to know more about him may very well wonder about the lack of a photo of the reported flight. The article should not avoid the topic. I agree that technology at the time made newspaper photography far less common than it became later, but I don't think that's a good reason to avoid answering the question whether any photo was taken. Nor can the article speculate about the reasons for no photo, unless there is a source that can be cited about the question. DonFB (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One source says that Dick Howell preferred to draw sketches, and that is the reason his articles were illustrated with drawings instead of photos. It was kind of his trade mark. Roger491127 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article's border of witches on broomstick are derided by Wright as a joke and by Gibbs-Smith as an admission that the article was a fantasy. Howell is not helped by the sketches, not one bit. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The border of witches on broomstick are not sketches made by Howell. That border is made by stamp-like figures used by the printer. Howell's drawings were very typical for him, and only the drawing of Whitehead's airplane in the air is typical for Howell's sketches.Roger491127 (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that even if there was a photograph taken of the flight in 1901, it would have had to be first made into an "engraving" before being published in a newspaper at that time. The image of Whitehead is an engraving of a photograph. Saying "no photographs were taken for the article" misleads the reader into thinking it was possible at the time to publish a photograph taken for a newspaper article. Wikipedia states that photojournalism really began with the invention of the wirephoto in 1921, the commercial Leica camera in 1925 and the first flash bulb in 1927. I suggest replacing the word "photograph" with "engraving".Tomticker5 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fireman Martin Devine affidavit
I protest against Binksternet's way of deleting parts of the article without any discussion on this talk page. I explained very carefully why this sentence was essential:

The fireman, Martin Devane, who was called to the scene of the accident reported: "...I believe I arrived immediately after it crashed into a brick building, a newly constructed apartment house on the O'Neal Estate. I recall that someone was hurt and taken to the hospital. I am able to identify the inventor Gustave Whitehead from a picture shown to me".

Binksternet deleted it without even a word in this section. I repeat: an event which has only two witnesses, one who tells the whole story, another witness who corroborates the latter half of the story of the first witness needs both witnesses. Without fireman Devane's affidavit Darvarich's affidavit could be pure fantasy, but supported by Devane the it becomes much more probable that Darvarich's affidavit is the truth. To remove Martin Devane's statement seriously damages the section about the alleged 1899 flight. Roger491127 (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin Devine, later a fireman but not in 1899, is a terrible source to support Whitehead flying a steam-powered aircraft. Devine never saw Whitehead fly! Even Stella Randolph dismisses him as a person who helped push Whitehead's mechanism on the ground but never saw it fly or crash. Randolph says that the crash described by Devine was from a vehicle rolling on the ground, not flying. William F. Trimble dashes Devine and Charles Ritchey to the earth by listing all the contradictions in the stories. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

An event which has only two witnesses, one who tells the whole story, another witness who corroborates the latter half of the story of the first witness needs both witnesses. Without fireman Devane's affidavit Darvarich's affidavit could be pure fantasy, but supported by Devane it becomes much more probable that Darvarich's affidavit is the truth. To remove Martin Devane's statement seriously damages the section about the alleged 1899 flight. What Stella Randolph or William F. Trimble think doesn't matter, we have only the affidavits of Darvarich and Devane as evidence to consider. Roger491127 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds inconsistent. If you accept Stella Randolph's opinions on one of Whitehead's reported activities you must also accept her opinions about another one, unless you have a third party to offer an alternate point or some criticism of her reasoning. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to accept Stella Randolph's opinion on anything. I can think for myself. Note that in 1935 she was a doctor's secretary and she wanted to become an author. Somehow she got into contact with Harvey Phillips, who knew a lot about the pioneers of flight. Stella Randolph collected a bunch of sworn affidavits. I take these affidavits very seriously. What Stella Randolph thought about things in the 1930s is irrelevant. Roger491127 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "I can think for myself." That is well and good, but here on Wikipedia we do not accept original research or synthesis. I hold that you presenting the reader with Davarich and Devine affidavits is original research using primary sources. Instead, we must use secondary sources such as Trimble and Randolph.
 * Randolph wrote a popular book about Whitehead; she is a central character in his biography. It does not matter much what qualifications she had if her work caused so much response, which it did. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So why did you accept and support DonFB's OR when he noticed that Howell's article lacked a byline in the photocopy of BH? That is really obvious OR.

The affidavits are primary sources, just like Howell's article, but I do not analyse them in any way, I just refer to their content, just like this wp article refers to the content of Howell's article in BH and it refers to the content of the affidavits. It even quotes parts of some affidavits. Roger491127 (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The content of Howell's article in BH has been copied by secondary sources, and the content of the affidavits have also been copied by secondary sources, and I can refer to those secondary sources if you prefer that. But no secondary source has ever talked about the lack of a byline on Howell's article in BH until DonFB did it in this wp article, which makes wp into a primary source for that information. And that is strictly forbidden in the most important wikipedia rules. Roger491127 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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" Roger491127 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Expressions like "The article did not carry a byline.", "According to an unsigned Bridgeport Herald eyewitness newspaper article", "widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell" had never been used by any sources before 2 October 2010 when you and Carroll Gray decided to write about the lacking byline. Roger491127 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Researchers
Researchers focused only on Whitehead include aspiring young author Stella Randolph inspired and informed by aviation buff Harvey Phillips in the 1930s, supported by prof John B. Crane's articles from 1936-1949. From 1963 and forward: ret. US Airforce major William O'Dwyer, the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association (CAHA), members of 9315th U.S. Air Force Reserve Squadron and Stella Randolph. Hang-glider pilot Andrew Kosch, and the Flugpionier-Gustav-Weisskopf-Museum in Whitehead's birthplace in Germany, and prof G K Weissenborn, Don Richardson, former professor in electrical engineering and Angelo "Mike" Cartabiano, retired R&D and flight safety engineer for Sikorsky and Arling "Pud" Schmidt, mass properties engineer for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, Irving Burger, an engineer at Sikorsky's helicopter firm, Ken Terry, an R&D industrial engineer who studied nuclear submarines under Admiral Rickover, and Pratt & Whitney's Wes Gordeuk. , These researchers have spent decades studying Whitehead and firmly believe that he made powered flights before 1903.

Note that all these spent a lot of time researching Whitehead's flights or reconstructing nr 21. The only change I can accept is the last sentence. "These researchers have spent decades studying Whitehead and seriously consider the possibility that he made powered flights before 1903." would be a better formulation.

You have deleted the part about all organizations and people present when the pin on Whitehead's grave was replaced with a big nice stone, but if you look up that deleted part of the article you will find all who honored Whitehead as the first airplane flyer in Connecticut. Among others all three military branches, USAF, US Navy and the US Army were represented.CAHA, now New England Museum, was also represented, and New England Museum is now the main caretaker of Whitehead evidence.Roger491127 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have read the archived Flight Journal article, but did not see text which indicated, as you phrased it, that dignitaries "honored Whitehead as the first airplane flyer in Connecticut." They honored him as an aviation pioneer, but not as a man who actually flew an airplane in Connecticut, or anywhere else.


 * The Wikipedia article says: "These researchers have spent decades studying Whitehead and firmly believe that he made powered flights before 1903." That statement is well-sourced for Randolph, O'Dwyer, Kosch and the German museum, but not sourced at all for the other groups: CAHA, the USAF squadron and the engineers who helped with the replica. At present, the wording in the article strongly implies that those latter three groups also conducted years/decades of research on GW and believe he flew, but that idea is not supported by anything specific in the sources. It's misleading and not supported to give the impression that those groups were also long-time GW researchers like Randolph, O'Dwyer, Kosch and the Germans, who did spend "years" or "decades" researching GW and did believe he flew.


 * Laboriously and unnecessarily listing the engineers who helped with the replica does not tell readers anything about what Whitehead did. It's just an effort to artificially raise his stature by hoping their expertise rubs off on him.


 * We can speculate that the engineers or squadron members "seriously consider the possibility that he [GW] made powered flights before 1903," but that's all it is--speculation about what they thought. As I explained previously, no source says CAHA takes an official position on the matter. Nor does a source tell us what any of the Air Force squadron members did, believed or concluded, except for one of them--O'Dwyer.


 * The presence of U.S. military representatives at the gravesite ceremony symbolizes belated respect given to GW as an aviation pioneer--not that he flew an airplane on August 14, 1901 or any other time. There's no support in the sources to say that's an honor they were giving him. DonFB (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a big mistake to add the sentence "These researchers have spent years studying Whitehead and firmly believe that he made powered flights before 1903" to the article. I don't think that can be fully sourced for any of the researchers and it is far from the views of the majority of the researchers. That sentence was probably added by somebody who wanted the researchers to sound like a bunch of fanatical people. We have to write much more individually adapted texts about the researchers, and the highly qualified experts who spent a lot of time and their expertise on creating blueprints for replicas. The airworthiness of the replicas and what it tells us about the possibility that Whitehead's nr 21 could fly or not hinges heavily on the quality of the work of these experts and their qualifications.

And we should restore the text about the ceremony when they replaced a pin with a nice gravestone. That text should describe exactly who were present and how they honored Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dSEjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BM8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1151,10768679&dq=gustave+whitehead&hl=en

hang-glider pilot Andrew Kosch

Gustave Whitehead may have flown his ... says William O'Dwyer, a retired Air Force pilot.

Note that William O'Dwyer does not say he "firmly believes". The German museum does not express a firm belief on their web site either. Roger491127 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant text at the end of the article
"Contemporary experienced amateur aviation researchers Nick Engler and Louis Chmiel[66][67][68] dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence, even if new evidence is discovered showing that he flew before the Wright brothers: "While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[69]

Whitehead expressed his own dedication to heavier-than-air flight in a letter to American Inventor magazine in 1902. He wrote that because "the future of the air machine lies in an apparatus made without the gas bag, I have taken up the aeroplane and will stick to it until I have succeeded completely or expire in the attempt of so doing."[16] Newspapers around the world had reported about Santos-Dumont's experiments with motorized and steerable gas bags for a few years when Whitehead wrote this."

This text is irrelevant because the article is about the fact that Whitehead built and flew motorized airplanes or not. The views of a woodworking expert and a Wright brother admirer who themselves have admitted that they are not real historians are not relevant.

The determination of Whitehead which was inserted to compare it to a similar expression from Wilbur Wright has become irrelevant and is some kind of amateur psychology or religious determination. This is also irrelevant to the issue of invention and science.Roger491127 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet changes
Binksternet has made many changes to the article without any discussions on this talk page.

for example he removed the word eyewitness from the formulation "but the eyewitness newspaper article about Whitehead's flight is widely attributed to journalist Dick Howell"

with the motivation:"cannot be eyewitness of a fictional event"

Wikipedia rules say follow the sources, and according to the article in BH the journalist was an eyewitness. We cannot describe the article in BH as if the author was not present, and pretend that he wrote an article about an event he had heard about.

Binksternet also deleted how Gibbs-smith quoted orville, which Binksternet probably did to save gibbs-smith from the way he discredits himself by copying orville without any research.

with this kind of motivations Binksternet can delete most of this article, and he probably will do it to, unless somebody defends the good parts of the article. he can delete everything about the affidavits, for example, with the motivation that they must be lies.

Roger491127 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted the footnote text about Gibbs-Smith quoting Orville Wright because I added a quote from Dickie, so Gibbs-Smith was quoting the Dickie affidavit at that point. It seemed useless to limit the named reference to only the quoting of Orville Wright when Gibbs-Smith supplies his own opinion in the 1960 book and since he extensively quotes Wright who quotes Dickie, Dvorak and Beach. It's more complicated than simply Gibbs-Smith quoting Wright.
 * The Bridgeport Herald article cannot be an eyewitness account if Gibbs-Smith says it was "juvenile fiction" and if Wright quotes Dickie in saying it was "imaginary". Fictional accounts cannot have eyewitnesses. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In Gibbs-Smith's opinion, the Bridgeport Herald article "read like juvenile fiction", not that it was fiction. An eyewitness, by definition, is a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it. This is exactly what the editor of the Bridgeport Herald did. I would like to see his eyewitness account of the sound the engine made while the plane was in flight inserted into the article. He said it was similar to the noise an elevator made while moving up and down its shaft.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the BH article is different from others that merely reprinted or repeated its information. We should mention that it was written as an eyewitness report to distinguish it from the others, and to show why it has been given credibility by GW supporters. I have modified the text to do this. DonFB (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DonFB. We should mention that it was written as an eyewitness report. In the section Witnesses Howell should be mentioned as one of the people who wrote affidavits or newspaper articles saying they were eyewitnesses. Roger491127 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, every time Gibbs-Smith mentions the Bridgeport Herald article in any of his books, which I know to be at least three of them, plus one posthumous reprint, he is dismissive in the extreme. He saves some of his most biting comments for Whitehead. The tone of his writing is that Gibbs-Smith thinks the newspaper article was fabricated by its writer. He also chooses to quote Dickie's affidavit in which Dickie says the article is imaginary. It would be unfaithful to the Gibbs-Smith sources to say his "juvenile fiction" wording is somehow being lenient with the Bridgeport Herald article, that it gives any kind of leeway. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like you are very afraid of sounding unfaithful to Gibbs-Smith, like he is some kind of God. But considering the incredible mistakes he has made in his books he doesn't even sound like a serious aviation historian. He accepts and copies Orville's argument about the delay of four days without even reading a few issues of BH, which would have shown him that BH was a weekly newspaper. He has no real evidence or good arguments against Whitehead's flights so he resorts to opinions like "the article in Bridgeport Herald sounds like "juvenile fiction". Roger491127 (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am holding the line at reliable sources. You must find sources which criticize Gibbs-Smith's research, which is more extensive than you think it is. Unfortunately for you, nobody challenges Gibbs-Smith's conclusions about Whitehead in print. Binksternet (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no intention to criticize Gibbs-Smith's research, or rather lack of research, in the article. I only say we should publish the evidence and arguments of the most prominent people who dismiss Whitehead and the evidence which support his flights, as well as we publish the arguments and evidence of those on the other side of this controversy. We should not tell the reader what to think. Present the evidence and arguments of both sides in the article and let the reader draw his own conclusions. Roger491127 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Such a strategy would be wrecked on the shoals of WP:No original research because the mainstream experts did not publish the full breadth of their arguments against Whitehead. Because of the brevity of their works on Whitehead, they likely felt that the simplest sort of dismissal would be suitable. At any rate, none of them laid out their thoughts regarding every pro-Whitehead fact. There are plenty of pro-Whitehead assertions which are not answered by mainstream aviation historians who instead use blanket dismissals. Thus, your proposed section holding arguments and evidence from both sides would favor the pro-Whitehead side who have written lengthier arguments. Binksternet (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To summarize what Orville, Gibbs-smith, Trimble have published is no OR, it is what we do here in wp, summarize sources. And it is a big problem that we can find so little criticism of the writings of Orville, Gibbs-smith and Trimble. Those who are sitting on the research material, the new england museum I guess, are only archiving it. They should publish it to begin with, and use it to criticize the people who dismiss the research material about Whitehead based on very little, and often faulty, evidence and a practically non-existent logic. So the best we can do is to publish the dismissive material from Orville, Gibbs-smith and Trimble and let the reader draw his own conclusions. I don't understand what you are afraid of. If the evidence and argumentation from Orville, Gibbs-smith and Trimble is so overwhelmingly convincing as you seem to believe you should be happy that we show them to the reader. And I think we owe it to the reader to present the material from both sides of this controversy. Roger491127 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "material from both sides" is already very adequately presented. The article does mention Gibbs-Smith quoting Orville about the four-day delay and explains the newspaper was a weekly. The article tells readers about the flying replicas and about the reversals of Dvorak, Crane and Beach. The article does not (and should not) include unsourced speculation about, for example, Langley's motives. The article gives very full expression to the evidence in GW's favor (the Herald, the affidavits, the replicas) and also gives the mainstream dismissals (Gibbs-Smith, Jakab, Trimble). The article is, I believe, very comprehensive and fair and does not omit any vital information. DonFB (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The material we present from the dismissal by "the mainstream scholars" is so little and thin that it does in no way explain to the reader on what grounds Orville, Gibbs-smith, Trimble, Jakab dismiss the material the researchers have collected. It sounds like we lived in medieval times: "The Pope dismissed what the astronomers Galilei and Kopernikus wrote as "juvenile fiction" and assured the people of the world that the earth is the center of the universe." That's how the world worked in medieval times, but we now live in a modern world. People have the right to, and want to be informed about both sides in a controversy, and they have the right to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments presented by both sides in a controversy. Roger491127 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We are limited to what the mainstream aviation scholars chose to tell us. We can wish for more complete step-by-step arguments from them but the wish will not be fulfilled. There is nothing to change in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As the article refers several times to "The scholarly mainstream view" we should have a section called that. like this:


 * Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6

Roger491127 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no vital information in that passage which is not already included in the article. And of course, as you should be well aware by now, Wikipedia does not simply copy and paste huge sections of original material into its articles. That violates policy. Wikipedia is written by its editors. Be sure to let us know if there's something you don't understand about that. DonFB (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This was written by Binksternet so I assumed he would like it, but we can rewrite it and summarize it better. Anyhow, this is the scholarly mainstream view, written by the giant of aviation history, Gibbs-Smith, decorated both in Britain and USA, so this is the best of the best of the scholarly mainstream view. And this is what was adopted by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers. Roger491127 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was written by Gibbs-Smith in 1960. There is also Gibbs-Smith in 1965, and then in 1970 following his year as the Lindbergh Chair. All three books hold analysis and conclusions, but very briefly.
 * I replaced your big copy/paste with a link to the archived version, per WP:TPYES. Please don't copy and paste large sections of text that appeared earlier. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the scholarly mainstream view from 1960, written by the giant of aviation history, Gibbs-Smith, decorated both in Britain and USA, so this is the best of the best of the scholarly mainstream view. And this is what was adopted by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers and used to discredit Whitehead. Maybe Gibbs-Smith had some additions to this in 1965 and 1970, but I don't think he retracted anything of what he wrote in 1960. Gibbs-Smith doesn't sound like the kind of historian who admits earlier mistakes and retracts them. If he had some additional arguments later you can enlighten us about it. Roger491127 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That's Not in My American History Book: A Compilation of Little Known Events ... By Thomas Ayres, page 9

http://books.google.se/books?id=gGiN4kyvAY4C&pg=PA3&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Td5NT7GjOMf-4QTou5TgAg&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Gustave%20Whitehead&f=false

"There were two reasons why Whitehead was denied his rightful place in aviation history. First, his accomplishments were overshadowed in a twenty-year publicity struggle between the Wright brothers and others for the fame and financial rewards that came with first-flight honors. Orville Wright and officials at the Smithsonian Institution both published articles dismissing Whitehead's flights as a hoax, despite numerous witnesses, including journalists and scientists. The second factor was prejudice. In the years leading up to WWI, a bitter propaganda campaign effectively demonized all Germans, including America's immigrants." Roger491127 (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Compare the Origin of Taps (page 27-28) from That's Not in My American History Book with Taps, and tell me how much faith we need place with Thomas Ayres. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a few different stories about the origin of Taps, as is often the case with short musical phrases, but I see no obvious faults in the author's style of writing or his logic. And Thomas Ayres's description of the conflict between the Wright brothers and the Smithsonian Institution is very similar to descriptions in other books, for example in this book: Flights past: The Wright brothers' legacy and Dayton, Ohio, By James Clayton Johnson, Western Michigan University

http://books.google.se/books?id=DxCNmDmp-cQC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Alfred+F.+Zahm&source=bl&ots=f9RCBKJRgE&sig=iMH_90h1Nh2-FfPOh7q6fiA7O3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-3RNT-DqM-X44QSR2dTvAg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20F.%20Zahm&f=false

big parts of the book is available, and the most interesting parts are about the scandalous behavior of the Smithsonian towards the Wright brothers, and other early aviation pioneers. Roger491127 (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But here is a very obvious example of an author whose logic is flawed, and who is using weasel words to discredit somebody:

High frontier: a history of aeronautics in Pennsylvania, By William F. Trimble, page 58 http://books.google.se/books?id=zbbSTdvJ580C&pg=PA57&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ifhNT9CuE4X44QSI06zqAg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=Gustave%20Whitehead&f=false

About the 1899 flight: "Whitehead himself admitted he steered and balanced his improbable craft, in effect betraying that they were most likely incapable of controlled flight." ... "the image of Whitehead and Darvarich astride a heavy and underpowered machine.."

This reveals what kind of author Trimble is. What does the word "astride" do in the 2nd sentence? He gives the reader the image of two men straddling some kind of tube, trying to keep the balance and risk falling off while travelling through the air. He is ridiculing Whitehead and Darvarich to scorn, mock and deride them.

In the first sentence he effectively says that because Whitehead could control his airplane he couldn't control it.

If Trimble had written about the Japanese girl who is paralyzed from the neck down and is one of the most famous painters in Japan he could have written: "The fact that she can only paint with her brush in the mouth proves that she cannot paint." Roger491127 (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But at least Johnson and Trimble have the common decency to add several citations and a long list of the materials they consulted, while Ayers has omitted to give us any insight into where he got his information from. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Trimble writes: "Whitehead himself admitted he steered and ..." What source did he use for that? I have studied all material about Whitehead for 5 years but as far as I know there is no source for anything Whitehead has said or written about the 1899 flight. (Maybe he didn't want to mention it because he saw it as a failure because it ended in a crash, but if they took off and flew 500 m at a height which very nearly took them over the roof of a 3-storey house it was actually a success.) Roger491127 (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are performing original research which Wikipedia does not entertain. Regarding the three-story brick building Whitehead crashed into, I thought he crashed at ground level while rolling. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am trying to find a source for a published story, which I don't see any rules against. As far as I know Whitehead has never talked or written about the 1899 flight, we have only the affidavits of Darvarich and Devane about that event, so naturally I am surprised to see Trimble write about what Whitehead said about it. And as Trimble is one of the authors mentioned in this article as one of the highly regarded authors who represent the scholarly mainstream view and who is said to meticulously list his sources it should be easy to find out what source he has for this statement. (Or is he confused and uses something Whitehead said about a flight in 1901 and applies it to the 1899 flight?) I have read somewhere that they could not quickly turn away from the house so they tried to fly a little higher to fly over the roof, but failed to rise above it, so according to that witness account they were high above ground level. Roger491127 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Martin Devine affidavit says the plane was "on wheels". The Darvarich affidavit says he and Whitehead were flying 20–25 feet high but it also says that the airplane was powered by a steam engine. Steam! Trimble makes much of the fact that in 1899 the lightest steam engine capable of carrying a man was too heavy to lift itself and the man off the ground,, or two men in this case, and some amount of charcoal. Trimble rightly calls it highly improbable, with strong evidence to the contrary. The notional flight "strains one's credulity beyond reasonable limits." Any aeronautics expert will tell you that an aircraft capable of climbing to 20–25 feet can just as easily climb higher and lift itself over a three-story building. There is no "ceiling" between 20 feet and 40 feet; no lack of oxygen, no inversion layer. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no hinder for building a light-weight steam engine. I only have experience of miniature steam engines, but they weigh less than 50 gram without fuel and water, the main weight is water and fuel. If you can condense the steam to water in a closed system you can get by with a few liters (kilograms) of water. Coal for a short flight may weigh 10 kg, so the total weight for the steam engine could be as low as 30-40 kg. Not much compared to two grown men and an airplane. And I think this was the engine the Australian expert Hargrave called an ingenious design, the Weisskopf system. Your reasoning about flight height is hardly worth an answer, but it is not about the height in itself, it is about how fast you can increase your height from too low to pass the roof to high enough to pass the roof. But that was not the question, I asked about where Trimble found a source for Whitehead talking or writing about the 1899 flight. Roger491127 (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Clever and lightweight steam engines exist, of course, but such an engine was not strong enough in 1899 to lift itself in manned flight, according to Trimble, along with two men. An aviation pioneer hitting a brick building with his aircraft shows him to be a dolt, not a genius. Trimble's unsourced statement must stand by itself. He is the reliable source. We have to assume he saw a statement from archived records that he researched. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Many Boeing Commercial Airplanes (7xx) have flown into mountain sides and other terrain hinders. That doesn't mean that Boeing's airplanes cannot fly. It doesn't mean that the pilots or designers of these airplanes are dolts. Your logic is flawed. Trimble has shown a lack of logic, he uses weasel words to ridicule scorn, mock and deride people, and he doesn't give sources for his statements, and based on this lack of qualifications as an author and human being I doubt very much his qualifications as an engine expert too. His strong association with the Smithsonian institution and the way the Smithsonian has acted for a very long time makes him a very suspect author. He seems to continue the scandalous tradition of the aviation history section of the Smithsonian. Roger491127 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My word "dolt" refers to the kind of aircraft pioneer described by Darvarich, one who might try to fly an aircraft near a brick building rather than on a wide, flat field. Of course we know now that Whitehead would not do this, since we have it on authority that the account is fabricated. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9fRKRCJz75UC&dat=19860613&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

The Free Lance-Star - Jun 13, 1986, photocopy page 21 = newspaper page 39-40

Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum director Walter J Boyne and Jakab: "Even if the replica of nr 21 flies on its own that doesn't prove that Whitehead flew in 1901". But they are avoiding the real issue. Orville, Gibbs-Smith and others have said that such a construction could never fly, Langley and Manly said it was an obvious hoax, it could not be airworthy. But a flying replica made with very precise technology proves that such a construction can fly. And it does it a lot better than replicas of Flyer 1 too. Roger491127 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NOR, your own opinion about the source is not helpful here. The opinions of Boyne and Jakab are worth putting into the article; they are reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should use parts of this excellent book: Flights past: The Wright brothers' legacy and Dayton, Ohio, By James Clayton Johnson, Western Michigan University, to describe how the Smithsonian has acted in the past and add some examples from modern times to show how the behavior of the Smithsonian over a period of at least 112 years has had a very detrimental influence on the history of aviation.

http://books.google.se/books?id=DxCNmDmp-cQC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Alfred+F.+Zahm&source=bl&ots=f9RCBKJRgE&sig=iMH_90h1Nh2-FfPOh7q6fiA7O3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-3RNT-DqM-X44QSR2dTvAg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20F.%20Zahm&f=false

big parts of the book is available, and the most interesting parts are about the scandalous behavior of the Smithsonian towards the Wright brothers, and other early aviation pioneers.

When the the Smithsonian finally gave up its struggle to describe Langley as the inventor of the airplane they started supporting the Wright brothers instead, using the same dirty methods they had used earlier. And the Wright brothers, especially Orville, and their supporters went from being bullied into becoming bullies themselves. People who have been the victims of dirty methods learn how to use the same dirty methods towards others. To sum it up: The the Smithsonian and the Wright brothers and their supporters have created a long standing tradition of a very dirty debate in aviation history, using methods like ignoring evidence, calling competitors liars and calling their inventions hoaxes, ridiculing competitors, avoiding the real issues, etc..

Cayley did a lot of important work to create the basic knowledge in the field of aerodynamics, and his method of flying a whole airplane around a central pole is a method which has a lot of advantage over using a wind tunnel which can not test a whole airplane. Whitehead used a full scale version of Cayley's method to test and refine the aerodynamic properties of a complete airplane.

Somebody said that the Wright brothers airplane, Flyer 1 and its successors became the model for all airplanes after them. That is a complete lie. No airplanes, before or after those models looked anything like the Flyers series. Flyer 1 and its successors were very stupid designs, practically impossible to fly with and it took the Wright brothers many years to change it into something that wasn't a suicidal machine and then this design was scrapped because much better models had been produced by other airplane makers. Roger491127 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is supposed to be about Whitehead, not Cayley, the Wrights or the Smithsonian. Unless the book makes a reference to Whitehead, it would be Synthesis to include material on Cayley's activities, the Wright designs or the museum without some reliable source making the connection. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean that somewhere in wikipedia there should be a section about all the sources who accuse the Smithsonian of scandalous behavior towards the Wright brothers and other aviation pioneers, maybe in the article about the Smithsonian, or in the article about the Wright brothers, and how that scandalous behavior affected the official history writing about aviation history. And there is already an article about the Wright brothers' patent wars, and how it was detrimental to the development of aviation in USA, to such a degree that when USA entered WWI in 1917 American pilots had to use British and French airplanes. And the bad behavior of the Wright brothers, combined with the scandalous behavior of the Smithsonian, affected the official history writing about aviation history, which was, and still is, detrimental to the history writing about other aviation pioneers, like Whitehead. So this article should summarize those sections about he scandalous behavior of the Smithsonian and the bad behavior of the Wright brothers, refer to the articles where this is described in detail, and point out the detrimental effect these two factors have had and still has, to the treatment of Gustave Whitehead. Think about how the Smithsonian treated Whitehead in 1901, when they were very interested in his airplane but did not contact him openly. Instead they found an opportunity to investigate his airplane in Atlantic City, at a moment when he was not present. Then they ignored him and all newspaper articles about him for many years. They ignored the book by Stella Randolph and the news articles by prof. Crane. The Smithsonian gave up their ambition to get Langley recognized as the inventor of the airplane and instead started supporting the Wright brothers, to get a copy of Flyer 1. and since then both he Smithsonian, Orville Wright and their supporters have done all they can to suppress all evidence and news reports about earlier aviation pioneers than the Wright brothers. And why not quote Thomas Ayres, who is summarizing these causes very well:

"There were two reasons why Whitehead was denied his rightful place in aviation history. First, his accomplishments were overshadowed in a twenty-year publicity struggle between the Wright brothers and others for the fame and financial rewards that came with first-flight honors. Orville Wright and officials at the Smithsonian Institution both published articles dismissing Whitehead's flights as a hoax, despite numerous witnesses, including journalists and scientists. The second factor was prejudice. In the years leading up to WWI, a bitter propaganda campaign effectively demonized all Germans, including America's immigrants." Roger491127 (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Science digest, Volume 94, Issues 1-6

http://books.google.se/books?id=bFYgAQAAMAAJ&q=Gustave+Whitehead&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wbVUT4OuEure4QSXwqm-DQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAzgo

Tom Crouch, curator at the Smithsonian Institution said: "..one of the witnesses to the flight described in the Bridgeport Herald article later said he never saw it." Roger491127 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

He is obviously talking about Dickie. And it is also obvious that he has not done any research, like interviewing Dickie, and has not discovered what O'Dwyer discovered, that Dickie displayed a deep animosity towards Whitehead and said he would never credit him with anything.

So we see that all members of what is called "the academic, mainstream view" have many factors in common. They have done no own research, even Gibbs-Smith had not found out, 60 years after the event, that Bridgeport Herald was a weekly newspaper, so what happened Wednesday morning could not be published until the following Sunday. And they are all working for the Smithsonian, or are Wright brothers admirers and biographers, or are quoting Orville Wright and these two groups without any fact checking or even a minimum of independent research. Roger491127 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, please stop using this talk page as your personal forum. The guideline WP:NOTFORUM advises all of us to limit conjecture and personal opinion on talk pages. You have been repeatedly asked to stop, and this has to be the last time. Keep your opinions from the talk page. Only post discussion about ways that we can actually improve the article, noting that that WP:NOR means we cannot consider your personal opinion in such deliberations. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Binksternet (talk talk page, because it is a result of this discussion in this section named "Binksternet changes" Roger491127 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am searching all sources about Whitehead and report on this discussion page about what I find. The last interesting find is this:

Americana, Volume 9,page 279

http://books.google.se/books?id=42wKAQAAMAAJ&q=Gustave+Whitehead&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wbVUT4OuEure4QSXwqm-DQ&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCTgo

"..until 1934 when a retired Secret Service man brought some Whitehead papers to Stella Randolph, a free-lance researcher-writer, prompting her to undertake a private investigation and interview people who might have seen the flights." Roger491127 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And about Binksternet actions: First, I have not been warned about this before. Your audacity in how you act, like you were an admin or something, and hide or delete my writings on this discussion page when you get angry and have no counter-arguments against the facts I dig up is very strange and it is like you think you can act like you own wikipedia. And you know what I have told you before, if you do not want to be criticized to pieces on my talk page then don't write on it. I am the only editor who is doing a lot of research here. Of course some of my findings will upset you, because it is obvious that you are very passionately partial in this issue (which should disqualify you from participating in the editing of this article) but don't blame me, take it up with the sources I refer to. Roger491127 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Popular Science Dec 1938, page 101

http://books.google.se/books?id=gyYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LzRVT5vJK4_64QSY_rXpDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgy#v=onepage&q=Gustave%20Whitehead&f=false

"Earliest aviation history comes to life in the form of a man-carrying kite and a gull-winged monoplane built on the lines of one constructed by Gustave Whitehead of Bridgeport, Conn, in 1900, three years before the Wright brothers..."

further down is a picture of the copy of nr 21 which Wally and Otto Timm built for the movie about aviation pioneers made in 1938. Roger491127 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, you are the one with a passionate dedication to a point of view, one that is shared by no historian of repute. You read the booksyou are citing here in a remarkable and highly partial manner: one of them clearly describes the flying replica as using moder technology: you claim this as an exact replica. Pretty much everything else in the source leads to the conclusion that whitehead's claims were bogus. You have to accept that all serious historians believe that whitehead never achieved any real success, and cavilling about who wrote the (ludicrous) account in the Brdigeport Herald is irrelevant. Whitehead's claims are both sensational in what they claim and implausible in how they claim it was achieved (tethered flights in his back yard? pull the other one, it has got bells on it), which is why they cannot be believed without very good evidence. That evidence is lacking.TheLongTone (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't say exactly where you mean I have written "you claim this as an exact replica" but because I have an education in science behind me I know that there are no "exact replicas" so I am sure I have never written that. Roger491127 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And about historians: this source says "Some historians respect the claim of Gustave Whitehead, who is said to have made four flights, one of which covered a distance of 1.5 miles, in his airplane No. 21 on August 14, 1901, near Bridgeport, CT."

http://www.google.se/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Whitehead&btnG=#q=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&psj=1&ei=QEVVT776CpPT4QSvubivDQ&start=90&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=5734f0a361f903c6&biw=1280&bih=674 bottom entry Famous first facts, by Joseph Nathan Kane, Steven Anzovin, Janet Podell.

And what is so strange about "tethered flights in his back yard"? That is a good alternative to using a wind tunnel, see the article Wind tunnel and Whitehead built a bigger circular runway paved with concrete, and there is no other use for a circular runway than testing and refining the aerodynamic properties of an airplane flying around a center pole. To be able to use a circular runway you need to be tethered to a central pole. The big steam machine described by Dickie was described as a stationary heavy machine intended for swinging an airplane around it, and there are other witnesses who said that Whitehead tested his airplane by flying it in circles tethered to a pole in the back yard. Cayley, who was a giant in the development history of aviation, tested model airplanes by flying them around a central pole. Roger491127 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.se/books?id=ImLPy5M6PLcC&q=Gustave+Whitehead&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZUhVT8XLEtTR4QSS0ejvDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzhk

Official gazette of the United States Patent Office: Volume 133, 1908

"Gustave Whitehead, Bridgeport, Conn., assignor of one-half to Stanley Yale Beach, Stratford, Conn. Filed Dec. 20, 1905. Serial No. 292614. 1. An aeroplane provided with a trough-like body terminating in a head and having the rear ..."

I don't know exactly what "assignor of one-half to" means, but it sounds like Stanley Yale Beach owns half of the patent. And considering who of the two had money it seems likely that Stanley Yale Beach paid for the patent. Roger491127 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Current biography yearbook, Volume 63

http://books.google.se/books?id=L4sYAAAAIAAJ&q=Gustave+Whitehead&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VL1VT5rNA4fR4QS6x5yECg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwATiMAQ

..elusive and obscure items in American history, including persons cheated of due credit for their achievements, such as Gustave Whitehead, the first to pilot an airplane a significant distance (a mile and a half, in 1901).. Roger491127 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All the tethered flight experimenters I know of, including Ader, Moy and Tatin (Cayley used a whirling arm), had a space considerably larger than a back yard. That is why Whitehead' claims are implausible. As ror the 'replica': "But a flying replica made with very precise technology proves that such a construction can fly" were your words. Look at th thread. If 'precise technology' does not means that the 'replica' was exact, the replica can not be held to  prove anything. Other than some people having more money than sense.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"you claim this as an exact replica" is not the same as "a flying replica made with very precise technology proves that such a construction can fly". Herb Kelly's method of reconstructing blueprints from a set of photos of an object from different angles has been described as very precise and this method was developed and used by the US military during WWII. And Cayley used small model sized airplanes so he had no use for a lot of space. When I was a child I got a model airplane which flew around a central pin and it needed less that a yard in diameter for the flight in a circle around the central pin. We do not know how much space Whitehead had in his back yard, but we have witnesses who said he tested his airplane by flying it in a circle tethered to a central pole, and a description of a heavy steam machine intended for swinging an airplane around it. The method of flying around a central pole has some advantages over the small wind tunnels built by Zahm and the Wright brothers. With the airplane tethered to a central pole you can test a whole airplane and refine its aerodynamic properties, in a small wind tunnel you can only test small parts like wing profiles. Roger491127 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Aviation's most wanted: the top 10 book of winged wonders, lucky landings ... By Steven A. Ruffin

http://books.google.se/books?id=1MBKzwAOkrAC&pg=PA93&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8dFVT7HsDJDE4gT6kOyACg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDiqAQ#v=onepage&q=Gustave%20Whitehead&f=false

"Gustave Whitehead (August 14, 1901) ... may have the most justifiable first-flight claim. More than two years before the Wright's first fligt at Kitty Hawk, he took off in his bird-like monoplane near Bridgeport, Connecticut, and flew nearly half a mile. There were many witnesses, including a reporter who not only wrote an in-depth article describing the flight, but also included a sketch of the aircraft in the air..."

Technology and culture: Current bibliography in the history of technology

http://books.google.se/books?id=kp8nAQAAIAAJ&q=Gustave+Whitehead&dq=Gustave+Whitehead&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8dFVT7HsDJDE4gT6kOyACg&ved=0CFYQ6AEwCTiqAQ

"Reviews the debate concerning claims on behalf of Gustave Whitehead, who may have achieved powered flight at Fairfield, Conn, on Aug 14, 1901, some two years before the Wright brothers.."

No new evidence but are two more examples of how thousands of books name Gustave Whitehead as the main contender to the Wright brothers for the title first motorized flight. Roger491127 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No new evidence is the point. Teold evidene has been thoroughly discredited: citing people who choose to believe it proves nothing. All these Stange but Untrue type tertiary snippets that you are wasting your time finding prove nothing, other than that some people like conspiracy theories and unfounded controversy. A point made in one of your more reputable cites. Your point about what your descrition of the 'replica' meant is another exaample of your entire faire ever to see the main pont of an argument and to grasp at straws> the point is that such excercises prove nothing. TheLongTone (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote "No new evidence" about the two last quotes. I just want to point out how many books mention Whitehead's claimed flights and name Gustave Whitehead as the main contender to the Wright brothers for the title first motorized flight.. But a lot of evidence was discovered by researchers from the 1930s to the modern days research made by CAHA. The fact that Whitehead is mentioned as the main contender to the Wright brothers for the title first motorized flight means that we need to describe the evidence and witness statements very carefully. If he really made motorized flights years before the Wrights it would change the history of aviation. I learned in school that the first successful motorized flights were made by the Wright brothers in 1903, so school-books all over the world would have to be rewritten. Roger491127 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The more carefully you describe the evidence, the more implausible it becomes. Dropping edits of previous statements into the thread is not good practice.TheLongTone (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You write "Teold evidene has been thoroughly discredited". I cannot agree with that, as the people who are trying to discredit Whitehead's flights are repeating Orville Wright's invalid arguments from 1945, without doing any own research. I have not heard any convincing arguments or evidence from the people who are trying to discredit Whitehead's flights, only personal opinions like "Howells article in BH sounds like juvenile fiction", "such a construction could never fly", "The more carefully you describe the evidence, the more implausible it becomes." and invalid arguments like "why would a journalist wait four days before he published such an important news item". Roger491127 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you have not heard any convincing arguments, because you are a diehard believer. You think the evidence is compelling proof (a personal opinion): the huge majority of people with any knowledge of aviation theory, history and practice think they are hogwash. This is a fact you cannot alter.TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not a diehard believer. I just think that the evidence for Whitehead's flights sound more convincing than the lack of evidence, and obviously faulty evidence, and personal opinions of the people who want to discredit Whitehead. Some of the people who want to discredit Whitehead even say that it is possible that he made motorized flights, but in that case it wouldn't matter anyway. It is like somebody accused of murder would say "I cannot believe I murdered him, the witness statement that says he saw me kill him sounds like a juvenile fantasy, and even if I did kill him it doesn't matter anyway." Roger491127 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you've made my point.TheLongTone (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I am happy I could satisfy you. But I think you read too much into this, just like you did when you thought that "a replica made with very precise technology" means the same as "an exact replica". Roger491127 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Original Research
DonFB: You refer to two documents as sources for your statement that the article in Bridgeport Herald lacked a byline. But it is mentioned nowhere in any of these documents that the article was "unsigned" or "lacked a byline"

http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Whitehead_Articles.htm#herald

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=c2wmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wf8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6334,3463341&dq=gustave+whitehead&hl=en

Please remove these statements, as you have no source for your statements, only your own original research, and you know that that is not allowed in wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article carries no byline. As you well know. It is not original reseach to use the article as reference for this, snce it is an evident fact: no synthesis is involved. Thsi point has been discused before: you are clutching at straws.TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * DonFB's version is the better one. The newspaper article clearly carried no byline; it is obvious. We have discussed this repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you two want to engage in original research you should at least do it well. Fact is that no article in that issue of Bridgeport Herald was signed by an author, and at least four issues before it and four issues after it had no signed article. So it was obviously the policy of Bridgeport Herald during this time that no articles should be signed. This article was no exception to this policy.Roger491127 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now added the formulation: "Some source documents mention the article in the Bridgeport Herald of 18 August 1901 without naming the author, some source documents say that the author was (Richard) Dick Howell." to the section Witnesses. I hope this will be accepted as a replacement for the formulations "unsigned" "The article lacked a byline" and "Widely attributed to Dick Howell". This formulation does not require any original research and is based on a large number of source documents. I know that you as well as I have read many source documents and you know that this statement is true. If you like we can add 10 source documents as references to this statement. Roger491127 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your added sentence is okay, Roger. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I also demand that the formulations "unsigned" "The article lacked a byline" and "Widely attributed to Dick Howell" must be removed. Well, I can accept that the formulation "Widely attributed to Dick Howell" can stay, but the other two must be removed, as they are based on original research. Roger491127 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not in a position to"demand". However much you would like the words "without a byline" or whatever to be removed, the article was published without a byline, and saying this, as reiterated many times, is NOT original research. You obviously accept that the article was unsigned becaue you can accept that it was attributdto Howell rather than being by him. It does not affect the weakness of Whitehead's claims to any great extent, in any case.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I AM in a position to demand. None of the texts referred to does say that the text lacked a byline. To find out that the article was unsigned you need to study the photocopy yourself and notice that there is no signature under it, and that is original research. As wikipedia editors we are only allowed to quote or summarize what a source documents says, and there is no source which says that this article was unsigned. So we can not write that in the article. But we can note that many source documents talk about this article without naming the author and many source documents say that the author was (Richard) Dick Howell. That fact is the basis for both the sentence before this sentence and the formulation ""Widely attributed to Dick Howell". But "unsigned" "The article lacked a byline" have to be removed as those formulations cannot be found in any source documents, and we can not draw those conclusions from reading the content of many source documents, they are both the result of original research, and if wikipedia spreads these formulations wikipedia becomes a primary source for formulations which have never been written before, and that is not allowed. Wikipedia can not change the history, only describe it. Roger491127 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stating that the sky is blue is not original research. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Unless you can find a source document which says that the sky is blue, and you can refer to that document as the source. Roger491127 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article lacks a byline. Fact. Saying this does not involve interpretation: its only relaying the content of a primary source. Whether it was written by Abraham Lincoln or Bugs Bunny makes no differeence: it still reads like juvenile fiction. For which there is a citation.TheLongTone (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand the rules of wikipedia. If you write something in wikipedia you must give a reference to a document which says what you just wrote. What source document did you find which says that this article lacks a byline? That's what the word verifiability means. If you write a statement you must make a reference to a source document which makes that statement. Roger491127 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the policies for Talk pages is that section titles should not name a user. Talk page section titles should refer to article issues, not users. So I'm changing this section title, because I don't want my user name attached to something I haven't done. DonFB (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, about the section title. But in which source document did you find formulations like "unsigned article" and "The article lacked a byline"? Roger491127 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't use a "formulation". I stated a reliably sourced fact in my own words, which--as I've told you repeatedly--is the fundamental way Wikipedia policies require editors to write articles. DonFB (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What source document did you find which says that this article lacks a byline? That's what the word verifiability means. If you write a statement you must make a reference to a source document which makes that statement. Roger491127 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See my answer immediately above. DonFB (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have tried to use both the article in BH as it is copied on Nick Engler's site and the photocopy of the article as the source for the statements "unsigned article" and "The article lacked a byline". But nowhere in that article does the author write "this article is unsigned" or "this article lacks a byline". So you can not use that article as a source for these statements. Roger491127 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have written earlier on this talk page that you studied the photocopy of the article and noticed that it lacked a byline, after Carroll Gray pointed out this observation to you and suggested that it could be used to reduce the credibility of Whitehead's flight that morning, which the author of the article describes, but that is original research, and that is not allowed in wikipedia. Beside being original research it is a sneaky way of supporting one side in the controversy and undermine the other side, and such partial propaganda is not allowed in wikipedia either. Roger491127 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Engler footnote is not used regarding the byline issue. The photocopy source (which you added to the article, very helpfully) is used. Editors are permitted to describe, neutrally in their own words, the content or appearance of a primary source. DonFB (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you can not make your own observations and describe them, especially not for partial propagandistic reasons. You can only quote or summarize the content of a source and refer that content to the source which said it. Verifiability means that the reader must be able to verify that the source document you refer to is saying what you have quoted or summarized. Do you want to take this issue to a notice board?Roger491127 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free. DonFB (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Gustave_Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied from this noticeboard:

--


 * Tom D. Crouch, senior curator of the National Air and Space Museum, discusses in his book, A Dream of Wings. He writes on page 123, "The by-line and other accouterments of a straight news story are also missing."
 * Crouch is paraphrased here in this newspaper article titled "Challenge to Wright brothers sputters: Experts doubt legitimacy of Whitehead story". The article reads, in part, "For one, Crouch noted, the story did not appear on the front page. It was not accompanied by photos and the reporter did not get a byline."
 * That settles it. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why haven't you presented this source document earlier? This discussion has been going on for two years. If DonFB had had access to this source he would not have had to do original research on the photocopy of the article. But, may I add, Tom D. Crouch is putting a lot of spin in these statements. Dick Howell never used the first page of Bridgeport Herald, he had his own page inside the newspaper, Bridgeport Herald could not reproduce photos, and no articles in Bridgeport Herald during this time were signed by an author. Roger491127 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not search for the citation and find it until yesterday when you filed the noticeboard entry. I guess I had it in the back of my head that the citation existed, so I did not bother looking for it earlier; I just felt that the information stood on solid ground. As well, I still believe that it is not necessary to provide proof that the sky is blue if such a statement is made. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But now, when Binksternet has given DonFB a source document he can use, there is no meaning in discussing this issue further, so I withdraw this request for help. Roger491127 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note to restate that Roger491127's allegation of OR is wrong and is based on his consistently faulty understanding of that policy. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have, not yet, added the above statement on the OR noticeboard. If you do the noticeboard has to investigate if you have done OR. Roger491127 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you use Binksternet's source from now on, or will you continue to use the photocopy? If you use the photocopy I have to continue the request for help on that noticeboard. Please don't be stubborn, use Binksternet's source from now on, so we can put this issue behind us. I have no interest in wasting time on this, so I will leave the issue if you use Binksternet's source from now on.Roger491127 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly comfortable with the current citation. If you want to add the Crouch reference, you're free to do so as an editor. I would not object to continuing the noticeboard discussion, so that a community decision can be reached for your benefit. Of course, the consensus in this Discussion is already quite clear, despite your protestations. DonFB (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

New source link
Trying to access http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff3.asp I found it is only accessible through the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20010302021243/http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff3.asp. I then searched for "Ted Basche" "Bridgeport Sunday Post" mentioned in the first document. I then found http://www.456fis.org/THE_HISTORY_OF_FLIGHT_-_WHO_FLEW_FIRST.htm which contains the text from the http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff3.asp series of documents, but without the pictures. Note the picture at the top of this page, it shows that this German replica is not using modern propellers, but very exact copies of Whitehead's propellers.

This document contains many valuable facts like this quote: "Later in that seven-page statement, Beach writes, "I saw no 10 H.P. engine for ground propulsion." Then, in the same breath, it reads: "The Whitehead aeroplane had many interesting features. It was inherently stable and could be flown safely, always 'pancaking' and landing on a level keel."

Note the contradictions: how can you not fly, yet have an "inherently stable" design that could be "flown safely" and land "on a level keel"? Beach claims he was the closest person to that subject, yet he contradicts himself repeatedly."

It also points out the many conflicting but revealing statements made by Stanley Beach. And what Thomas D. Crouch wrote about the editors of Scientific American. And the conclusions of that. Roger491127 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The link may be "new," but the content is not. The Flight Journal article has been cited in this article and accessible at the Web Archive link for a long time, perhaps a few years—currently Footnotes 3,18,33,42,65 in this article and listed in the Bibliography. The "new" link contains the same text. DonFB (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note the picture at the top of this page, it shows that this German replica is not using modern propellers, but very exact copies of Whitehead's propellers. You could argue that the camera just happened to be set to a shutter speed, out of thousands of possible settings, which created the illusion of triangular propellers. But modern propellers have rounded front and end edges and the edges of the seemingly triangular propellers in the picture are perfectly straight, which proves that this shape is not an optical illusion created by a shutter speed set with incredibly low probability to exactly the speed needed to create the illusion which looks exactly like Whitehead's propellers, it is a very good picture with extremely short shutter speed, possible because of the bright sunlight and modern film, showing that this replica used copies of Whitehead's propellers. Roger491127 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am copying a text from the noticeboard to this talk page because I want all relevant ideas and arguments collected in this talk page:

If somebody wants to discredit Whitehead and say than none of his airplanes ever flew it becomes necessary to cut the link between the journalist Howell, who had such a solid reputation, and Whitehead's flight which is described in detail in this newspaper article. If a wikipedia editor can investigate a photocopy of the article and notice that the article was not signed by Howell he can write in the article about Whitehead "The article lacked a byline" and to reinforce it further write "in an unsigned article" to create an impression that this article was maybe not written by Howell, and the drawing of Whitehead's airplane in the air in the article is a forgery.

As long as no source exists which points out that the article lacked a byline the wikipedia editor has to carefully study the photocopy of the newspaper article and note that the article was not signed by Howell and publish that observation with the intent to discredit Whitehead. He can not reference this statement to any document which says that the article lacked a byline. He also has to ignore the fact that the drawing in the article was characteristic for Dick Howell or point out that the drawing was not signed either. He also has to ignore the fact that if somebody impersonated Dick Howell and published an article and a drawing made to look like one of Howell's drawings the real Dick Howell must have reacted to this forgery in a way which can be found in following issues of Bridgeport Herald. But nobody has ever found any signs of such a reaction. Roger491127 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

John Whitehead
I stumbled upon http://www.whiteheadaircraft.com/ about a John Whitehead who lived in California during the end of the 1800's and got involved in building airplanes. Several details coincide with Gustave Whitehead's brother, but there are also details which are different. This John Whitehead was born in England and returned to England in 1915 and started building Sopwith Pups. Probably another John Whitehead, but it is surprising how there could be two John Whiteheads who lived for some time in California and then got involved in pioneering aviation history. Roger491127 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No result about original research from the noticeboard
Our plea for help from the noticeboard was unanswered and has now been archived. So I guess we will have to decide the issue ourselves. DonFB, Binksternet and others have supported the method of studying photocopies of Bridgeport Herald and reporting the observations one can do and reporting the observations in this article. So I guess it is okay for me to use the same method. Roger491127 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article The Telegraph - Jan 18, 1937
About John B Crane's investigations:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9fZEAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oLoMAAAAIBAJ&pg=7155,5587501&dq=bridgeport+herald+1901&hl=en

Roger491127 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Milwaukee Journal - Mar 10, 1986
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cmgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WyoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5155,2842252&dq=bridgeport+herald+1901&hl=en

The article says the author of BH article was Richard Howell, and other statements. Roger491127 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to photocopies of all issues of Bridgeport Herald 1901
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=4p5LGG1h9z0C&dat=19010818&b_mode=2&hl=en Roger491127 (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have searched through the whole issue of Bridgeport Herald August 18 1901 and found no article signed by an author. I have searched through many issues before and after this issue and still haven't found a signed article. Some articles have a note in the beginning saying (Special to the Herald), obviously meaning that the article is an exclusive for Bridgeport Herald, and other articles which have been copied from other newspapers have the name of the newspaper it was copied from at the end of the article. But there are no bylines of an author in either case. So I guess that it is okay for me to point out in this article that no articles in Bridgeport Herald during the summer and fall of 1901 were signed by an author. Roger491127 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just deleted your personal attack on Crouch, a living person, per WP:BLP. Regarding your wish to employ the same stratagem as DonFB, I note that after examining one issue of the newspaper that you expect to be able to claim that no byline was printed the whole summer and fall. No, to do that you would have to cite every newspaper issue in the summer and fall. I would delete such a cite if it ever showed up here.
 * What Crouch was getting at was that there is a tiny element of uncertainty regarding whether Howell wrote the piece. Crouch is a more reliable source than you are; he will continue to be quoted in this article even though you would like to damn his name. You are not going become a reliable source any time soon.
 * Regarding the entry at NORN, what I get from that is disapproval of your stance. The other editors who weighed in were me, DonFB, Carroll F. Gray, GraemeLeggett, and TheLongTone. All of us disagreed with you. The takeaway is this: don't try to push your weight at this article. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not make a personal attack on Tom D Crouch, I criticized his conclusion as a historian, a scientist, and a participant in an historical controversy, and there is a big difference between a personal attack and criticizing what he does as an historian and a public participant in a controversy. If he participates in the public debate about a historic event his views and methods must be open to criticism. "Regarding the entry at NORN, what I get from that is disapproval of my stance. The other editors who weighed in were Binksternet, DonFB, Carroll F. Gray, GraemeLeggett, and TheLongTone. All of them disagreed with me." Yes, I agree. But this decision was not about weight, it was a decision about original research. The result was that it is not original research to read through photocopies, noting if articles are signed or not, and reporting the result in the article. I have read through many issues of Bridgeport Herald, the August 18 1901 issue and many issues before and after that issue and I have yet found no signed article, so I can report that in the article, with references to all photocopies I have read through which contain no bylines. I am not referring to myself as a source, I am, just like DonFB, referring to photocopies of Bridgeport Herald from the summer and fall of 1901. Roger491127 (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Accusing Crouch of being "intentionally misleading" is about the most serious attack that can be made on a historian. And what's with the our plea for help? its you that wants sombody to back your absurd take on what constitutes original research. Nobody responded because you are unable to make a point concisely, so nobody could be bothered to wade through your claim.TheLongTone (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that text in this section has been deleted, both by Binksternet and TheLongTone, in conflict with the rules of wikipedia, as far as I can understand. Use the "View history" tab to find out what has been deleted.

To clear up this we have to discuss what constitutes a "personal attack" and how this rule is different for three groups.

1: Wikipedia editors: You have to be very careful with criticizing other wikipedia editors, as the slightest criticism can be taken as a "personal attack".

2: Living persons who are not wp editors. Such persons can be criticized for what they do in their field of work, a physicist can be criticized for his theories in the field of physics, a historian can be criticized for his writings as a historian, but we may not, for example write that he is beating his wife, is an alcoholic, or is insane, because such things are not connected to his work or writings in his field as a physicist or historian, those examples are attacks on him as a person, hence a "personal attack".

3: Dead persons who are not wp editors. The rules for this group is similar to the rules for living persons, personal attacks are not allowed. But in some cases it is a generally accepted view that somebody used drugs, for example, and if that is necessary to explain the behavior of the person, and had important consequences, it may be mentioned. Roger491127 (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There are also differences between what can be written in discussion pages and what can be written in wp articles. And special cases when a person is both active as for example an historian, publishing books or web sites, and the same person is also active as a wp editor. In such cases I think he can be criticized for what he has published in his books or web sites, but we still have to be very careful to avoid being accused of "personal attack" on him as a wp editor. Roger491127 (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It surprises me that no other editor has commented the deletions of text from this discussion page, by Binksternet and TheLongTone. Why don't you say what side you are on in this controversy, GraemeLeggett and DonFB? Roger491127 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Pierpont_Langley#Aviation_work the article talks about " He built a rotating arm (functioning like a wind tunnel) and made larger flying models powered by miniature steam engines." This is the same system Whitehead used, both in his backyard and on a bigger circular cemented test site. This allowed him to test the aerodynamic properties of the whole airplane and make adjustments to make it stable in the air, and allowed him to land simply by aiming the airplane towards a suitable place and turn off the motor. The airplane landed itself safely because it was aerodynamically stable. This kind of wind tunnel was much better than the small wind tunnel the Wright brothers built, because it was so small that they could only test wing profiles. The result was that the airplanes the Wright brothers built were very unstable, especially in the up and down movements. If they had learned from earlier aviation pioneers like Langley and Whitehead, and tested their prototype airplanes flying around a central pole, they would immediately have realized that their idea of a front-mounted up and down rudder would be very hard to impossible to handle. Roger491127 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the long arm tethering the model was a limiting factor. The tethered model was unable to turn right or left because it was flying around a central pole. It could only rise and descend. Neither Pierpont nor Whitehead were able to test their aircraft's turning ability on such a test rig.
 * Also, your assertion that Whitehead's experimental models were "stable in the air" is not confirmed by mainstream researchers. Even so, Gibbs-Smith goes so far as to say that the instability of Wright Flyer was what made it able to fly. It was a thoroughbred of the air; tricky and difficult, but successful in its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevence of the above, although the account of the 'advantages' of whirling arms does go a long way to explaining why Roger can believe that Whitehead' claims are anything but absurd since it betrays a deep ignorance of, among many relvent things, aerodynamics.  In any event, whether Gussie flew or not is not the pont: the fact is that his claims are almost universally disbelieved.TheLongTone (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead Article Length and Density
Hello, again, to all who have toiled on the Whitehead article. The article, as it currently stands, seems to me to be overly long, jumbled and dense. I've been away for a long while, but I believe we were close to settling on a structure which would have helped to make the presentation more clear and easier for our readers to digest. As I've skimmed over the discussions of the recent past, it seems that more weeds have popped up, and minor issues that were seemingly "settled" (is anything ever "settled" ?) have arisen, again. The main tension is still, it appears, some editors (at least one) are determined to "prove" Whitehead "flew" in the current meaning of that word and will not cease until that dubious "fact" is stated in the article. I urge those who want to see that happen to understand that proving one thing or another is not the purpose or role of this article. Write an article or a book "proving" that Whitehead flew. Am I wrong in thinking that this article is supposed to offer resources and references and information for the purpose of assisting our readers to do their own research and to come to their own conclusions ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Carroll, welcome back! I agree with you that the article is "overly long, jumbled and dense". I continue to monitor it for any changes, but have not tried to slim it down or clean it up. I think we hold rather similar, though perhaps not identical, views on the subject, so if you're inclined to dive in again, I'll be glad to collaborate. DonFB (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea, gents. I'm looking forward to some well-considered trimming down and tightening up. I'll watch from the sidelines. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that it is totally appropriate to express my views here, DonFB, but since you commented that we might hold "similar, though perhaps not identical" view on GW, I thought I would openly state mine here: 1) GW deserves recognition as one of the most persistent members of the "tinkerer/inventor" school of the pre-Pioneer Era of flight, and he actually did build things - at a time when many such interested parties talked a good game but did not spend the time, money and energy to build machines; 2) his designs were imitative, not original, yet he did have and did include original ideas in his machines; 3) he lacked fundamental understandings of flight and control of a three-axis regime; 4) He exaggerated and fabricated his achievements, but not, apparently, without calculation; 5) he was a source of speculation and admiration by local residents, as well as rebuke and disapproval; 6) his work left no lasting influence on aeronautics; 7) his boosters have suppressed important negative information about his work; 8) he fits well into the broader economic and social circumstances of Bridgeport at the time and those circumstances help to explain many of the seeming mysteries which have surrounded him; 9) his most ardent boosters have not been honest in what they have presented and have even gone to the extent of fabricating "facts" and distorting affidavits. That's probably enough for now. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right, although I'm not aware of sourced info related to points #7 and #9. In any case the challenge, it seems, is determine if the article needs some adjustment regarding its "balance" between the mainstream and minority viewpoints, and to relieve it of some of its excessive detail and possibly combine some of the sections or subsections. DonFB (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One way to begin might be to go back to the point at which we had begun to collapse sections and restructure the entire article. I'll look for those discussions and edits, but please everybody join in - as I recall it was a lengthy back-and-forth. There are three (it seems to me they are major) items to get a consensus on - if that's possible - which would be very helpful. I propose we 1) move essentially all of the "Smithsonian controversy"/History By Contract/Wm. O'Dwyer" material to the History By Contract article. In that same vein, the GW section of the History By Contract article could be dispensed with and simply linked to the GW article - it's redundant as it sits; and 2) The Bridgeport Herald article could also become its own article, with the disputed details and authorship delved into there, not in the GW article. A synopsis of the Bridgeport Herald article would be included in the GW article but not all the material currently there; and 3) the material on SYB could become its own article, although SYB would need to be mentioned in the GW article - there is more to SYB than simply his connection with GW. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever's in related articles still needs to be summarised on the linking from articles. The Bridgeport article is not a subject of discussion outside GW so I don't think its independent article material. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Carroll, here is a link to an August 2010 discussion and your suggestion for the article's structure. It's in Archive 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_3#Suggested_Whitehead.2FWeisskopf_Article_Structure
 * Your suggestions today seem reasonable, though as Graeme reminds us, the main article should retain a summary of material that's relevant to the GW story. I also think Graeme is correct that the "Herald" newspaper article does not seem to warrant a Wikipedia article of its own. But we can endeavor to trim down the amount of space it occupies in the GW article. DonFB (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, DonFB. I agree that material which relates directly to the GW article should be retained in a summarized form - for instance, in the matter of History By Contract a separate article already exists and the assertions made in HBC which relate to the Smithsonian and the agreement regarding to the 1903 Wright Flyer could be lifted from the GW article and placed more appropriately in the body of the HBC article. That is the type of pruning I am suggesting. I can agree with the point made by GraemeLeggett that the Herald article does not warrant it's own article. I believe we can utilize links to other articles and summaries to advantage in offering a more easily accessible article about GW to our readers. Are we in agreement that the GW article is not the proper forum to argue the merits of the assertion that he was first to fly ? Also, are we in agreement that our fundamental purpose in presenting the GW article is to offer resources and references to interested readers ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, we, as editors, should not argue the GW first-to-fly issue in the article. We do, however, have the job of presenting reliably-sourced evidence and arguments about GW's achievements (or lack thereof). We also have the job, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to present sourced arguments in their proper balance to each other. Earlier in this Discussion the point was made that pro-GW arguments and writings seem actually to outnumber the dismissals of GW claims by "mainstream" historians. Nevertheless, this article (like any article) should reflect the mainstream consensus and should therefore give those views more weight, which, logically, should mean more space. We need not (and should not) make the article shy away from the controversy, but we should present the controversy in appropriate balance, using reliable sources. The proponents of GW seem sufficiently numerous and legitimate that they should probably not be relegated to "fringe" status, as defined in Wikipedia policy. However, that point could be debated.
 * Regarding the "fundamental purpose" of the GW article: it's the same as any other article. One of Wikipedia's policies is that articles are not merely a collection of links. That is, editors write articles to present actual information, cogently and neutrally. Of course, well-written articles should also have good "resources and references" for readers to pursue. DonFB (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, there are a lot of words written here and for what purpose? A very good source and reference from 1904 establishes that Whitehead was a flyer and documents his prominence in the world of aviation (same page as Wright Brothers) in 1904. However, it's totally lost in the article by all the rhetoric from dismissal historians from decades later.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same article? What I'm seeing is that "all the rhetoric" is pro-Whitehead argument. The dismissals are comparatively brief. Binksternet (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomticker, you're misstating what Cochrane wrote. Cochrane's comments about GW are about his ground-effect tow-gliding machine - the vague reference to "sufficently satisfactory" experiments is not a statement that GW flew in a powered controlled aircraft. Quite a number of people had "flown" in gliders prior to any such made by GW. I don't see that Cochrane advances the discussion very much, if at all. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Carroll, as a first step toward improving this "overly long, jumbled and dense" article, and in accordance with an idea you proposed, I suggest we work to condense the O'Dwyer material and edit and transfer the remainder into the History By Contract article. Would you like to take a shot at a first revision of the O'Dwyer material? DonFB (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * DonFB, thank you, yes, that's a very good place to begin, and I'll take a run at that. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I have is that Cochrane's 1904 book was inserted into this article, by me, very recently. It's a reliable source published in 1904, reprinted 1908, that helps readers to understand Whitehead's place in aviation history; in 1904. His fame did not come about due to the Wright Brothers flying! More importantly Cochrane's book was not referenced in any of the work by aviation historians who have tossed aside his work decades later. Why? I'm sure there are other credible sources that exist that could be added to the Whitehead article in time. And, I'm not doubting the inspiration of the editors here who want to fix the GW article, but I think it would be prudent to let others do it over time.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone is free to edit this article--responsibly and with the aim of npov. If you or anyone can find other credible sources--supporting or refuting claims for GW--that would be fine. DonFB (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject which is Gustave Whitehead - aviation pioneer. However, Carroll F. Gray states; "I don't see that Cochrane advances the discussion very much, if at all". I disagree, Cochrane adds NPOV content from the period 1903 to 1908 that helps the reader to understand GW's place in early aviation history. The article has a slant under the editing of some of the editors here who created and work on the Wright Brothers article, especially DonFB (talk) and now Carroll F. Gray, who clearly are trying to help the reader to arrive at a conclusion that GW never flew at all "the discussion". Cochrane doesn't need to advance the discussion that Whitehead flew or not, the fact is that GW did not fall into obscurity after 1903, as this article once previously stated, and was considered, at least by Cochrane in 1904 and for a decade later, to be in the very same class of aviators at this time in history. In 1904, Cochrane was the first to classify aviation as a commercial industry and believed that; "When the successful air-ship comes, it will not be the work of one brain, but of the hundreds that have studied the problems of flight". GW was included in Cochrane's book which listed the aviators work chronologically and was inserted by Cochrane on the very same page as the Wright Brothers in 1904.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom, you say "GW did not fall into obscurity after 1903" but of course he did fall into obscurity starting in some year. By the time he died he was broke and unknown. All the biographers, sympathetic and dubious, describe Whitehead as falling into obscurity. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My purpose is not "trying to help the reader to arrive at a conclusion that GW never flew at all." I don't know if he did, or did not. My purpose is to help create a neutral non-bloated article that informs readers about GW as best as can be done, using sources considered by consensus to be verifiable and reliable. Other editors of this article, on the other hand, have shown a clear intention to slant the article to "prove" what GW did. DonFB (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To be on record... I don't seek to slant the GW article in any direction to suit any view I hold, personally, and I see part of the reason why I spend time here as being to weed that very thing out whenever it appears. Tomticker5, you wrote "In 1904, Cochrane was the first to classify aviation as a commercial industry" - well that isn't so, Henson and Stringfellow, as well as Marriott and Chanute, and numbers of others in the 19th century saw that aviation would be commericalized as an industry. Also, re-read the Cochrane entry about GW and you'll see that he doesn't quite say what you've said he says. As for obscurity, GW is among the legions of aerial experimenters who struggled to perfect an aerial machine and failed to do so and who, after some mentions in this or that newspaper or magazine, disappeared from public view... now back to working on the GW article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In 1895, Cochrane wrote The Wonders of Modern Mechanism which included a chapter on "Flying Machines". To his own credit, he was the first to classify "Aviation" as a commercial industry in his later book Modern Industrial Progress in 1904 which includes all the major aviators in the world at the time, including Gustave Whitehead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't GW suffer a slight set-back after a near fatal crash covered in the Hartford Courant and then die from a heart attack in 1927? How can you say that the man disappeared from public view or fade into obscurity, when in fact he died? There are several Wright Brothers editors here trying to fix the GW article. What is your inspiration? Is it to make sure that a statement similar to; "he flew in a heavier than air machine powered by a motor of his own design in 1901", will never make it into GW's article because you intend to "weed that very thing out whenever it appears"?Tomticker5 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, you say "How can you say that the man disappeared from public view or fade into obscurity" but you must realize that just about every biographer says this. Your argument is with them, not any of the editors here. Because Wikipedia follows reliable sources, this article must say Whitehead slipped into obscurity. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Tomticker, I wonder if you have recently read the article's Introduction. It is, I believe, a model of proper balance. It does not unequivocally say, as you evidently would like, that GW "flew in a heavier than air machine powered by a motor of his own design in 1901". Instead, it correctly attributes reports and claims that he flew to the Herald, Scientific American, and the affidavits. The Introduction also correctly tells readers that mainstream historians dismiss the reports and claims. Do you adhere to a pov which prefers that only one side of the story be written in Wikipedia, or that we, the editors, in our own judgement, give credence to only one side of the story? DonFB (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)