Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 3

Controlled flight?
From the affidavits we know that Whitehead started from one avenue in the city of Bridgeport, flew along a street and landed on a suitable place on the next avenue, turned the plane around, started again and flew the same way back and landed in the place he started from, without crashing into a house, a car, a telephone pole, a person, a tree or anything else. He rebuilt number 21 into number 22, replaced the bamboo frame with an aluminium frame, and one day in January 1902 he flew first along the shore of the Long Island Sound and landed in the water so close to the shore that his helpers could pull the plane out of the water. He then refueled and started again, he used the mechanism he had planned for turning, slowing one of the propellers, to fly in a big circle over the sound, returning to the place where his helpers waited and landed very close to the shore so his helpers could again pull the airplane out of the water. He did not land far from the shore, he did not crash into any of all the objects on the shore, he landed exactly where he wanted to land. This shows that he could follow a certain course and land exactly where he wanted to land. I don't know if this can be called "fully controlled flight" but Whitehead could certainly control his planes 21 and 22 much better than the Wright brothers could before september 1905 after a radical re-design of their airplane. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC) - You're greatly overstating things when you call the 1905 Wright Flyer a "radical re-design" - it incorporated design changes but they were subtle, not radical, and to most people's eye would look very much like the 1904 and 1903 machines. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One Intractable Problem
As I've renewed consideration of this whole matter of Gustave Whitehead and his supposed "flights" (in the modern meaning of that word), I've come to see one overarching and intractable problem for those who desire to see him recognized as the person who made The First Flight in a controlled, heavier-than-air, powered machine. The waters have been so muddied up with what can only be called excuses, that I believe that no one will ever be able to sort it all out. What this means is that Gustave Whitehead will continue to be seen as a "pretender" and a "charlatan" whose legacy is supported by vociferous, illogical and gullible people. I believe that Gustave Whitehead did something, but what he actually did seems to me to be far different from what his supporters and defenders say he did. Every piece of evidence on his behalf comes attached to some strange element of fact which undercuts that very evidence.

We know that the Wittemann Brothers visited Gustave Whitehead, and Charles Wittemann continued to be supportive of Whitehead's accomplishments until his death. That seems to me to be the single best piece of evidence there is. Charles Wittemann was certainly not naive or unknowing about aeronautical matters. Yet, we see that one of the points on which G.W.'s supporters press hardest is some supposed visit (or visits) by both Wilbur and Orville Wright who manage to con G.W. into revealing some supposed secrets in exchange for some vague promise of financial support. What might be a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence (that the Wittemann's visited G.W., were familiar with his work, successfuly used one of his engines in an aeroplane which they built, and that Charles Wittemann continued to be a defender of G.W. for decades) thus becomes a highly improbable story about the Wright Brothers conning G.W. out of his "secrets."

When we read that the wings on Nr. 21 flapped, G.W.'s supporters say that G.W. did not understand the meaning of the words "propeller" and "wings" - a strange way to defend an aeronautical pioneer. G.W.'s letter published in Ilustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen (in German, G.W.'s native language and so most likely actually written by G.W., unlike the published letters in English stated to be by G.W. but most likely written by Stanley Yale Beach) clearly demonstrates that G.W. knew the difference and used the words "propeller" and "wing" ["bearing surface"] appropriately. Instead of taking G.W.'s own words to heart, S.Y. Beach's somewhat muddled letters are held to be G.W.'s.

When it is asked - appropriately - where are G.W.'s notes and business records we are told that they were taken to the dump, yet what evidence is there that they ever existed ? There has grown to be an excuse and rationalization for each and every question posed - yet the excuses and rationalizations lack evidence to support them. So, at this point, we have a mountain of excuses and very little real evidence. What happened to Nr. 21 - the supposed first successful aeroplane ? It was reconstructed as Nr. 22, we are told. Yet, where is the evidence (beyond G.W.'s statements) that Nr. 22 ever existed ?

When one of the witnesses said to be present at the supposed events of 14 August 1901 says he was not present, did not assist that day and did not see G.W. make a flight, that stated witness becomes an angry disaffected former employee, who had supposedly turned against G.W. for lack of payment and whatever other wrongs might have been visited upon him. No, there is the appearance of much more going on here in this example than merely decades-old heat and anger about not being paid.

When we are told about the accident in Pittsburgh in 1899 we are told that the steam-engine-powered machine in which G.W. and Davarich were riding struck a three-story building, the inference being that they were off the ground. I believe this event happened, but that the machine in which the two were riding was essentially a steam-powered winged automobile which became uncontrollable and struck a building (one report states it struck a bridge abutment). By the way, the steam engine G.W. built was either closely based on a Locomobile's steamcar engine, or was modified from a Locomobile engine.

There is no evidence I've seen which demonstrates that G.W. visited or stayed with or collaborated with the Lilenthal Brothers, none. Yet, his supporters and defenders take it as an article of faith that this happened, even to the point of saying that G.W. stayed with them for two weeks. This appears to be one more tissue meant to elevate G.W.'s status, but it does his memory harm, as it is almost certainly untrue.

In New York, G.W. worked for E. I. (Edward Imerson) Horsman, a camera, doll, sporting goods, and toy manufacturer who had a large toy store, yet the word "toy" seldom appears in any citation, and a false impression is generated and left that G.W. was doing much more than assisting in the design of aeronautical kites and toy Lilenthal-type gliders (which is what he was hired to do). The Wiki entry for G.W. states "Also in 1897, the manufacturer Horsman in New York City hired Whitehead as a specialist for hanggliders, aircraft models and motors for flying craft." - which is misleading in the extreme and thus is untrue.

The contract/agreement between the Wright heirs and the Smithsonian Institution is held to be designed to deny Whitehead his due recognition, whereas it related to the status given the Langley Aerodrome by the S.I. Furthermore, Orville Wright is said to be behind the contract/agreement, when it was the Wright Family heirs. In some of the more sloppy defenses of G.W., it is said that the Wright Brothers (Wilbur died in 1912) insisted on the contract.

Many more examples could be offered, but the above give the flavor of "The Problem."

In my view, G.W. has suffered more at the hands of his supporters and defenders than at the hands of his detractors and critics. If G.W.'s defenders and supporters would cleanse their arguments of supposition, excuses, rationalizations, rancor, and hostility, and stick to whatever facts are at least evidentiary, G.W.'s legacy and position in aviation history might improve over time.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) --

Response to the text above
DonFB: "Your belief in the Wright "visits" is based on Pruckner's statement, but no other evidence exists." There is an affidavit from another person who witnessed their last visit, so it is based on two witnesses, not one. That the Wright brother design was completely different from both Whitehead's and many other pioneer's designs probably has other reasons, the most likely is that they intended to patent their design, so it had to be unique, so they could not be accused of using details or motors which others had designed. That is also a probable reason why they refused to follow Octave Chanute's advice and use a Whitehead motor. Roger491127 (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Carroll F. Gray: "You're quite right, Custead was a faker and promoter and it is unfortunate that G.W., who actually built gliders that could fly, was ever linked to him. Contrary to what you think, I have an open mind about this all,.."

When I used as an argument that no sane person would choose to make the first manned test in the dark of the night you turned that around to a proof for that Whitehead must have been insane because he chose to make the first manned test in the dark of the night. That sounds, to me, that you have a closed mind, when you do not accept reasonable arguments and instead turn it around to something unreasonable. We have the words of Howell, "the light had now become good" and was quickly getting brighter before Whitehead decided that it was time to start the manned flight. And we have the reasonable argumentation that he would hardly decide to do a manned flight in the dark of the night. Roger491127 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In your own web page you write: "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." Do you really think she should be the final arbitrator of this issue? If you have so much knowledge about Whitehead you must know that she hated his work in aviation because it took so much time and resources from his family life, and she was a very occupied woman, having to raise the children, take care of the home and the garden, and she also had to work outside the home to support the family. How could she have had time, or interest in his flying experiments? Don't you understand how silly it is to say "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines."?Roger491127 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, when you repeat that Howell wrote "By this time the light was good." continue with the next sentence that Howell wrote "Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." Don't you see that what Howell is describing is a time before sunrise ? "Faint traces..." "...began..." "...to suggest themselves..." Carroll F. Gray76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "most likely is that they intended to patent their design, so it had to be unique, so they could not be accused of using details or motors which others had designed. That is also a probable reason why they refused to follow Octave Chanute's advice and use a Whitehead motor." Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the basis and nature of the Wright Patent and what it covered.

Please, read the Wright Patent. The Patent was not issued on the design of the Wright 1903 aeroplane, it was issued on the three-axis control incorporated into the Wright 1902 Glider.

Please offer the source citation for your statement that Octave Chanute gave advice to the Wrights that they use a Whitehead engine/motor.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Whitehead article cites a comment in an article by William O'Dwyer in the Oct. 1998 Flight Journal online. (Currently, Wikipedia footnote 39 of the Whitehead article.) Interestingly, the cited article is on a webpage called "Find Articles," not the actual Flight Journal site, so the citation is at least once removed from its origin. Furthermore, O'Dwyer in his article does not give a source for his statement about Chanute's (alleged) engine recommendation to Wilbur. Even considering these issues, when this text went into the Wikipedia Whitehead article, I did not object, since the online source seemed reasonably "reliable" and "verifiable," even though O'Dwyer's actual article offered no source or verification for his comment about Chanute.


 * Challenging a statement made about someone else by a recognized person (O'Dwyer) whose statement is cited in a reasonably reliable source does seem as though it would lead to endless controversy in innumerable subjects. In a strict academic sense, I think the O'Dwyer statement could be challenged and even stricken. In the Wikipedia context, it seemed to meet the basic requirements for inclusion. At the time, I added the phrase, "According to William O'Dwyer writing in Flight Journal..." I don't think any such attribution was included when an editor first added the text about the purported Chanute recommendation. Here is the source of the statement about Chanute. It is a link to page 4 of the Find Articles reproduction of the O'Dwyer Flight Journal article.....http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199810/ai_n8815811/pg_4 DonFB (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While it is proper to include that the attribution is from William O'Dwyer, the historical fact is that O'Dwyer made a grave error. The engine used by Tom Baldwin in his California Arrow at St. Louis in 1904 was an engine built by Glenn H. Curtss, not G.W. There is a substantial, and to me, irrefutable, body of evidence on this point. In short, O'Dwyer is simply in error.

Similarly, William O'Dwyer is confused about Chanute suggesting a Whitehead engine to the Wrights. The only piece of correspondence from Chanute to the Wrights regarding Whitehead's engine is the 3 July 1901, letter in which Chanute informs Wilbur Wright that famed balloonist Carl E. Myers has written to Chanute telling him that Whitehead has "invented a lightweight motor" and yet (Myers tells Chanute) he, Myers, has hired Matthias Arnot to build a lightweight motor for him. To say that Chanute suggested the Whitehead engine to the Wrights is an egregious mis-representation. Chanute did not.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

James Dickie, more
From the article: "One of the statements given by a witness in the 1930s seems to refute claims that Whitehead flew. Air Enthusiast wrote:

In James Dickie's affidavit of 2 April 1937, he states that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the aircraft shown him "in pictures No 32 and 42" never flew, that he does not know Andrew Celli, and that he was not present on the morning of 14 August 1901. Although it initially appears very damaging to Weisskopf's claims, this document is riddled with errors and proven distortions. The dimensions of the aircraft described by Dickie have nothing at all in common with those of machine No 21, which Weisskopf tested on 14 August; therefore, Dickie cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane. When Major O'Dwyer spoke with him about the affidavit, "(He) admitted that the engine described in it was one stationed upon the ground, having heavy boilers transmitting steam through a hose to the pipe, causing it to revolve for the testing of tethered aircraft . . . The engine was not intended for use in aircraft, and never was. In light of Dickie's later admissions, his affidavit of earlier date has little value and it would not have been published had all the facts been known earlier.[9]"

When we add to that Dickie's phone interview, quoted above, I think we can safely decide that whatever Dickie said we should not believe it or use it because he was obviously very angry at Whitehead and he used every opportunity to discredit him. Roger491127 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment ("we should not believe it or use it") illustrates very well the major problem I have with your approach to editing this Wikipedia article. It is not up to you (or me or any other Wikipedia editor) to decide to exclude a historical statement based on your personal value judgement about the statement or the person who made it. That is not how Wikipedia is designed to work.


 * If a historical quotation or piece of information is contained in a verifiable and reliable source, and is relevant to the subject of an article, it may be included in the article. The quotation or statement must not be excluded merely because a Wikipedia editor personally disagrees with it, or makes a judgement about the historical person's state of mind or emotions (anger, etc.).


 * Wikipedia articles are built on existing verifiable and reliable sources, not on each editor's personal judgements about the personalities or experience of historical persons or what those persons are reported to have said or done. Nor are Wikipedia editors permitted to include their own original research in an article. If you disagree with a well-sourced statement in an article, you can dispute the source and/or find and add an opposing statement from another verifiable and reliable source.


 * You must not arbitrarily remove, exclude or censor well-sourced content because you personally disagree with it. Doing so is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of operation.


 * Wikipedia's job is to present well-sourced information, even contradictory information, so that readers can make up their own minds or seek more information elsewhere. DonFB (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

- You write "Dickie cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane" yet Howell says Dickie was present and assisted on 14 August 1901. However, as we've discussed, James Dickie states he was not present. By saying that Dickie "cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane" are you saying that he was not present on 14 August 1901 ? If you are, then R. Howell, who says he was there along with Dickie, made a false statement in the Herald article of 18 August 1901. According to Howell, there were only four people present (not counting the milkman), so Howell could not have simply been mistaken when he wrote that Dickie was present.

So, which is it ? 1) Was Dickie present but was not acquainted with Nr. 21, or 2) was Dickie not there, was not acquainted with Nr. 21 and Howell therefore wrote a falsehood when he wrote that Dickie was present ?

Carroll F. Gray76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only reply with what I already wrote above. When we add to that Dickie's phone interview, quoted above, I think we can safely decide that whatever Dickie said we should not believe it or use it because he was obviously very angry at Whitehead and he used every opportunity to discredit him. Roger491127 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my statement above, beginning "This comment...." DonFB (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

- But the choice which presents itself is that Howell falsely stated in his Herald article of 18 August 1901 that Dickie was present - or - Dickie was present and (as you say) was not acquainted with Nr. 21 ("that aeroplane"). It cannot be both ways. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC) -

More responses
The rest of Carroll F. Gray's text above is a collection of reasons to doubt statements from pro-Whitehead people and I actually agree that some of it is maybe, or even probably, doubtful.

But let us return to what is really essential, the many witnesses to Whiteheads four flights August 14 1901, and the witness to his flights from Avenue to Avenue and back to the starting point, and the witnesses to his flights in January 1902. Those witnesses are many, over 25 plus a reporter from a newspaper. Those witnesses can not be ignored and they are the most important proof that Whitehead actually flew, more than 2 years before the Wright brothers, and that he had very good control of his airplane, because it always landed on its wheels, it landed undamaged, on both land and water, it landed where he wanted it to land, and he did not crash against any of all hinders present. Roger491127 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Horsman
"Also in 1897, the manufacturer Horsman in New York City hired Whitehead as a specialist for hanggliders, aircraft models and motors for flying craft. At this time, Whitehead occupied himself with plans to provide a motor to drive one of his gliders." I agree with Carroll Gray that this sentence needs to be checked and probably replaced with the formulation about kites. etc.. which he suggests.

In my memory that is what was said about his work for Horsman in this article a year or two ago, it is certainly what I have read somewhere, it included kites and other toy-like objects. Roger491127 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed that sentence in the article, so it is better. Change supported by me and, I assume, Carroll Gray. Maybe we will find a better, sourced, formulation later. Roger491127 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC) - Thank you for making that change. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

James Dickie, another
I added the quote above from http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/6 to the article, placed directly after the other text about James Dickie. Reason, it is clarifying and necessary to explain to the reader why James Dickie witnessed in the way he did. Roger491127 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinion and logic vs. sources
I am following the debate between Roger and Carroll with great interest. My comment here is kind of a follow-up to what I wrote above about how Wikipedia works.

Debate on the subject of Whitehead can continue indefinitely with little or nothing settled. Importantly, the personal opinions and logic of Wikipedia editors about the murky and contradictory historical record should not be a determining factor in the content of this (or any) Wikipedia article.

By no means am I trying to truncate the debate, which I find fascinating. I just want to try to steer the process in a way that will be relevant to the actual text of the article.

In editing Wikipedia, the important thing is not to focus on applying personal logic to the events as reported, but rather to focus on including actual relevant information from the sources upon which the article is based, and to apply Wikipedia guidelines to determine the reliability and verifiability of those sources. Of course, there is plenty of room for debate about sources. Such debate can result in changes to the article, something which has already happened as a result of the current discussions.

This debate is a little different than usual, since Carroll, I believe, has done original research on the subject and he is a recognized "source". That being the case, his opinions and logic could be included in the article, if they are cited as part of his published or online work (which is essentially the case already regarding inclusion of his view about Mrs. Whitehead's "last word" on the controversy). Carroll, of course, can make direct edits to this article like anyone else. Similarly, it would be appropriate and necessary to cite his published (or online) work, if his edit adds text based on his original research. Alternatively, in this article's Discussion, Carroll can point out information in his published/online work, which another editor could then include and cite (which also happened, regarding Horsman). DonFB (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chanute recommendation
Carroll Gray wrote:
 * "To say that Chanute suggested the Whitehead engine to the Wrights is an egregious mis-representation."

Thanks for this information. Very informative. How would you suggest this information be included and cited in the article? Do you think the O'Dwyer statement should be retained with a referenced rebuttal? Or do you think the entire issue should simply be dropped from the article, since, based on what you've said, it amounts to nothing. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you know Chanute did not suggest the use of a Whitehead motor, source? Roger491127 (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How did Carroll Gray communicate this to DonFB? Why didn't he use this discussion page for an open discussion between all editors and readers of this discussion page? Roger491127 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) --

Roger J., you'll find my full statement above, in "Response to the text above." I am interested in having all these various discussions documented on this page, so, please be assured, all I have to say is said here.

DonFB, My preference would be to include O'Dwyer's statement, since it has been circulated far and wide and is often cited, but to state that there is confusion on O'Dwyer's part about the matter, and that there is no documentary evidence that Chanute ever suggested that the Wrights use a Whitehead engine.

Also, in that section, Orville Wright's denial that he and Wilbur ever visited with Whitehead should include Orville Wright's declarative statement that the first time he and his brother were in Bridgeport was in 1909, on their way by train to Boston. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC) --
 * Both recommendations sound good to me. Somewhere in the Wikipedia guidelines (which are supposed to be simple, but actually could fill volumes...), there's a statement along the lines of (I'm quoting from memory): "controversial statements may be challenged and removed". That certainly applies to almost every part of this article. So a text revision which says there was "confusion" on O'Dwyer's part and that there is "no documentary evidence" of Chanute's engine recommendation to the Wrights (or Wilbur specifically) will need a good citation from the proverbial verifiable and reliable source(s). Can you offer a suggestion for such a citation? Likewise, for the mention of 1909 as the year of the Wright visit to Bridgeport, is there an available citation (print or online) to back up that statement as well? DonFB (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

--- The citation for the 3 July 1901 O. Chanute/Wilbur Wright letter, The Papers of Orville and Wilbur Wright, Vol One 1899-1905, pp 64-65

The 1909 Bridgeport citation is 19 October 1937 O. Wright/Fred L. Black letter, The Papers of Orville and Wilbur Wright, Vol Two 1906-1948, pp 1164-1165, which reads "Neither Wilbur nor I was in Bridgeport until 1909, and then only in passing through on the train."

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Determination
You know I don't think that the content of this section should be included in this article at all. But if you still insist on including it it should at least be in a separate section, as it has nothing to do with anything else in the article. Maybe Carroll F. Gray agrees with me (?) that this section should be deleted, then we get rid of at least some of the clutter in this article. Roger491127 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC) - Yes, I agree, Roger, this section ought to be deleted from the article, but the discussion of "Determination" kept on this page. Thank you for suggesting it. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) - Determination section deleted.

DonFB, I wouldn't mind if you work the John B Crane references into a suitable section.

Carroll F. Gray, that sentence about letting his wife have the last word, etc.. is referenced to your page, but I think you quoted it from a much more important source, and it should be referenced to its original source. Do you or DonFB know its original source? Roger491127 (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC) - That statement about Louise Tuba Whitehead being given the last word, etc., is from the G.W. page on my flyingmachines.org web site and is my original wording, not quoted material from another source. Therefore, I suppose the "much more important source" you are referring to is me (humor). It is possible that someone else has also had that thought, but as far as I am aware, it is my original thought and I was the first to state that thought in print, and I take the subsequent blame or the subsequent credit for it.

Except for clearly quoted material, all the narratives on my flyingmachines.org web site are my original writings.

Prof. John B. Crane presents some problems - he argued on behalf of both sides of the Whitehead matter, first stating that he "failed to find substantiation" of the claims made on behalf of G.W. (National Aeronautics Magazine, Dec. 1936, pp 11-14), and then (Air Affairs, An American Quarterly Journal, Winter 1949) writing in support of the claims made on behalf of G.W.; in the latter article Crane made no mention of his earlier article or his earlier position on the matter.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC) ---

Aeroplanes
A minor point, perhaps, but I noticed that the article's "Airplanes" states that the wing covering of Nr. 21 was "silk" (Harworth said "white silk") - yet a number of contemporaneous statements (including Howell) said the covering was muslin. The tightness of the weave of silk vs. muslin means that silk will, under common circumstances, not pass air through as much as would muslin, so the lifting capacity of the same area of each would be different. Also, of course, silk was (and is) much more expensive than muslin.

Also, the caption "Whitehead in the air in his Glider 1" should be changed to read "Whitehead in the air in his Glider of 1903"

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that in the Fall of 1902 G.W. ("under the firm conviction that he has theoretically solved the problem of flight") offered to sell steam-powered "aerial machines" having "immense wings" which can carry 6 people for $2,000. G.W. is also said to have claimed that his "model traveled at the speed of 45 miles per hour." It is also noted that (August of 1902) "Mr. Weiskopf has Anglicized his name to Whitehead." (The Aeronautical World, Vol. I, No. 1, 1 August 1902, p.21)

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Determination, restored
As a bona fide aviation historian, Carroll Gray brings valuable new insight into the issues and controversies of this article. I'm grateful for his participation on the Discussion page. However, I do disagree with his opinion that the Whitehead-Wilbur Wright quotations about their determination to build an airplane should not be in the article. I think the quotes offer a fascinating glimpse into how Whitehead's ambition ran parallel to Wilbur's---as a man who passionately wanted to a build flying machine and was willing to risk his life in the effort. If anything, the parallel quotes offer a bit of evidence that shows Whitehead to be a more serious aeronautical pioneer than aviation historians may consider him to be. Rather than detracting from Whitehead, the quotes potentially give him a bit more legitimacy.

Carrroll's opinion is apparently not based on issues of fact, in which I have no doubt of his authority. In fact, he did not offer any reason for excluding the quotations. I think the parallel quotes offer readers a deeper understanding of Whitehead, while also providing readers with a fascinating piece of historical knowledge about him and about Wilbur. Other parts of this article have made various comparisons betwen Whitehead and the Wright brothers. So too, does this brief passage. DonFB (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC) -- DonFB, you've convinced me. In the light of your comments here, I can see the value of including the section. My thought when Roger J. suggested deletion of the section was that quite a number of people in the 1900 - 1906 period believed that heavier-than-air machines would ultimately be the most successful means of aerial flight, at a time when balloons and then one-person airships were the primary means of aerial flight.

The widespread doubts about powered heavier-than-air mechanical flight were effectively removed years before by the highly successful and widely publicized flights of Langley Aerodromes No. 5 and No. 6 during 1896. So, the comments in this section by G.W. and W.W. were not as unique as they might have seemed to be - but I can happily live with your decision to restore the section.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC) --

Later Career
The statement "Whitehead sold motors to, among others, Glenn Curtiss [15], who has been called 'the father of American aviation industry'." is false. The confusion here is between the Wittemann Brothers (who did purchase and who made good use of a Whitehead engine to power a Curtiss-type biplane of their construction) and Glenn Curtiss. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC) --

A simpler explanation of wikipedia rules
If I make a web page about Whitehead I am not allowed to quote myself and insert material from my web page, that is called original research and is not allowed in wikipedia. But anybody else can quote my web page, and if the other editors allow it to be included it becomes a part of the article. If I have material on my web page which is a quote from another source I can of course use that in the article too, but then I can not refer to my own web page as the source, I must refer to the source where I found the quote.Roger491127 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This subject can become both complex and subtle. Elsewhere in Wikipedia there are voluminous discussions regarding "reliability" and "verifiability" of sources. If your published/online work becomes regarded as "authoritative" and/or "recognized," and is accepted, as you said, by other editors, it can be used. Furthermore, I do not think there is any prohibition against you including and citing your own original work, if you have achieved authoritative/recognized status, which of course could be subject to considerable debate. But it is true that people cannot simply start quoting from their own webpages if they have not achieved "recognized" status. DonFB (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the issue becomes cloudier if a person quotes material from another source on their own webpage. First, can the "original" material be found on its own webpage? If so, it would be preferable to cite the original page. If the original material can no longer be found, how "authoritative" is the webpage which quotes the material? I believe there are places in the Whitehead article where these issues are relevant.


 * This is probably a good time to mention, if you are not already aware, that the Doug Malan webpage, which is quoted several times in this article, is no longer online. His article included important quotations (including Jakab) that were highly relevant to the article and the debate. We, as editors, should take appropriate action to resolve the problem. I searched extensively for the Malan page, but could not locate it. DonFB (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Doug Malan and asked for a copy of his article. He informs me that it is no longer posted on the web at any location (it also was not archived on the wayback web archive), but that he will search for the text on his home computer. I'll post what the result turns out to be. Carroll F. Gray76.93.40.250 (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. I actually found one of his pages in the Wayback Archive (Dec. 2005) which displays the first paragraph of the article. But the link on the archived page to read the full article does not work. Perhaps he'd be willing to repost it (it's easy to change Wikipedia's link to it), or, if you and he are so inclined, possibly you might include it on your site--assuming he saved it somewhere. DonFB (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the big weaknesses of wikipedia in my view is that reason and rationality is not allowed. For example, if I explain why Whitehead's plane always landed safely on its wheels, because the configuration of the wings and the tail of the plane, combined with the big total wing area made it behave a little like a parachute, then I can not write that in the article, because it would be seen as original research by me. Even if all present editors agreed we would not be allowed to publish it, because it would still be original research. If I could make Washington Post publish it though, then we could publish it, because Washington Post is a "authoritative" and/or "recognized," source. A certain amount of reason always creeps into the articles anyway, but such passages can always be called original research and removed by other editors.Roger491127 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reason and rationality are used when discussing the reliability/verifiability of sources. But it is not permissable to use one's own reason, logic and so forth to make personal conclusions about important historical events (or any other subject matter). If that practice were allowed, Wikipedia would quickly degenerate into a completely unworkable site, because people would always be arguing over their personal opinions about every subject, and edit wars would be far worse than they are now and would cripple the site. That's why Wikipedia's basic principle is to rely on established sources, not on each person's "logic," or "rationality" regarding historical events, or science, or any other subject. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can complicate the issue even further. Even though all content of wikipedia must be based on quotes from "authoritative" and/or "recognized," sources we should not use direct quotes. Instead we are supposed to rewrite every quote or blockquote with our own words, making sure that our text says exactly what the quote says, no less and no more, and then refer the text to the source. Then you get high scores in the wikipedia community for a beautiful and well written article, properly sourced and referenced. But we simply do not have the time and energy to rewrite quotes in our own words, so many articles look like this article about Whitehead, full of quotes. It is seen as an ugly article, and we, the editors are lazy, but at least we have found all relevant material we could find and put together a rather informative and well sourced article. Roger491127 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this article is all three things you said: informative, well-sourced and ugly. However, I don't think it has to be ugly. I think the multiple big blockquotes do result from a certain unwillingness--or laziness--to work a little harder at editing and trimming the material so it is not so bulky and hard to read. There are several places where big quotations simply appear, with very little introduction to put them in context or prepare the reader for what they're about to see. I believe the big blockquotes could be cut down to a more manageable size. I also think there are portions of the article that don't need to be in their own sections, including the Whitehead-Wright quotations about determination. I think the recent addition of sections: "Museum"; "Herald-Journal - Jan 19, 1937"; and "Reading Eagle - Jan 18, 1937" make the article messier. The information in those sections could be smoothly included in other sections like Controversy, Research, or External Links. I think articles should of course be informative and well-sourced, but they should also be pleasing--not intimidating--in appearance, which will encourage people to read them. They don't have to be ugly. DonFB (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What I'm Doing
A clarification - at this point, I am most comfortable devoting my time and attention to this Discussion page, rather than making changes, editorial or factual, to the article. I'm leaving it to others to either incorporate what I'm offering here into the article or to not. I want to adhere to the Wikipedia process and don't want to be adding my own language based on my own work. I don't plan to argue about inclusion or exclusion of what I offer or to advocate its inclusion, beyond what I say here on the Discussion page. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A wise decision, as you can influence the content just as much by giving information here on the discussion page, and you cannot be accused of inserting material which could be called "original research" if it was added by yourself. (Roger Johansson)

About DonFB's latest changes
I don't like that you changed the size of the portrait, it doesn't use the full potential of the picture, and it creates a big white space below the fact rectangle. I guess you have a good reason to refer to, like standard rules for such portraits, but I still don't like it. His face was so much more impressive when I used the full pixelsize which fit very well into the fact rectangle. Do you really HAVE TO remove the size number?

I accept many of the changes you have made but I may return with details about the changes.

What I didn't like even before your changes is that the formulation about "a few witnesses". There should be a separate section called Witnesses in which we insert all mentions of witnesses, like the investigation O'Dwyer and his pilot friends made when they found 30 persons, of which 20 said they had seen the flights, 8 had heard about the flights, etc.. and how they found friends of the deceased Cellie who said that he had always said that he was present when W flew, and add the affidavits to this section and other witnesses, the prof J B Crane who had interviewed people still living in B who under oath say they saw W fly, so the reader understands how many witnesses there are in total. After all, that is the most important part of the article. Roger491127 (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We can imagine what happened that day, August 14 1901, when the first manned flight was only witnessed by a few people, but as he continued with three more flights the same day it must have resulted in a mass of witnesses gathering around the field, who witnessed one, two or all three flights. And that day is probably the source of all the 25 or more witnesses who later witnessed about the flights. Roger491127 (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The photo was just too big--ridiculously big. Slows down page loading also. Look at other Wikipedia articles with a biographical photo. I doubt you'll see a single one with a photo that big. It's a perfectly good size now and shows his expression quite clearly. The main reason there's more white space below the picture is because the table of contents contains so many items--and now you want to another one: Witnesses.


 * The article needs serious editing, not more categories. For example, 'Smithsonian' should be part of 'Controversy', possibly as a subheading. (The page can be edited so subheadings are not visible in the table of contents.) One of my goals in editing this article is to eliminate duplication of information. Perhaps 'Witnesses' could be added as another sub-category of 'Controversy'. If so, it should not duplicate existing text about the witnesses. Preferably, it should gather together that info from other parts of the article and put it all together. I have doubts whether doing that is even a good idea, but it would take some editing, and yes, editing can be time-consuming and require a bit of hard work. The last thing I want to see is another category that duplicates existing information in the article. Skillful editing by several people should result in an article that reads as if it were written and edited by one person. DonFB (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

- I agree fully that the current status of the article is not very admirable. It is choppy and lacks a constancy of "voice." In the next week or so I'll suggest a structure on which to hang the article's various elements.

I thought the very large image of G.W. was "stretched" too much and showed signs of falling apart, visually. I like the current size.

One example of what is not good about the article - as it stands currently - the "Airplanes" section (more properly "Aeroplanes") is very thin and some of the content that is there has some problems. If this article is to be about G.W.'s work, wouldn't you think that this section might be very well crafted, very informative and complete ? As it is this article's centerpoint is the CONTROVERSY (and in capital letters) - and displays an editorial tug-of-war for all to see. Does this well serve the interest of giving G.W. his due ? I don't agree that it does. I think the article as it exists, digs the hole of confusion and claims/counter-claims ever more deeply.

Let me be clear - there is no possibility, in my opinion, of ever successfully arguing that G.W. made the first true flight. If it's desired I will expand on that opinion.

Even if the blurry photograph is to turn up in as a pristine negative or print, it will not be absolute proof nor will it be accepted as absolute proof. When was it taken ? Who took it ? and so on.... endlessly...

I will indulge myself in a bit of speculation - if found, that long-sought "proof" photograph (the G.W. counterpart to the 1903 Flyer "First Flight" photo) will show one of G.W.'s gliders aloft, not Nr. 21 or the chimeric Nr. 22. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC) --

O'Dwyer's collection
I have read that O'Dwyer had a room full of documentation, affidavits and recorded interviews, so we can assume that he recorded all interviews, including the phone interview with Dickie. The problem is that his collection of documentation now is in the hands of some institution which is very inactive, they just preserve the collection, but do nothing to publish even parts of it so it becomes available to the public, on the internet preferably. Roger491127 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC) --- I've begun asking about the status of the O'Dwyer Archive and will report here. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The portait size
To DonFB: The former portrait is 112 kilobyte and the new is 50 kilobyte in size. Most web pages in the internet are 1-10 Megabytes in size, with all the pictures, moving gif's, ads, popup windows, etc.. I have used a slow phone internet connection with modems ranging from my first 2400 kB/s to 56 kB/s for many years before I got a fast line connection in my present apartment, and a difference of 52 kB has never been a problem. This wikipedia article loads in a few seconds or hundredths of a second no matter what kind of connection you have, and smaller devices like mobile phones have built-in functions for resizing, zooming in and out, so it is no problem for such web readers. So your argument about the portrait size is not a valid argument. The new size is ridiculously small in that fact rectangle, leaving a lot of white space around it, and it causes a big white space below the fact rectangle. The larger version I put in is sized as the portrait original size, it fits perfectly in the fact rectangle, so it does not have to be compressed, or resampled, that preserves the details in an optimal way. His face is so much more detailed in the larger size than in the small and resampled size you inserted, this is a great loss of detail and general impression. I think these are valid arguments for restoring it to the former size. Roger491127 (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Determination
Added quote from Wilbur Wright which sheds light on his "strong determination". Roger491127 (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anywhere that C.Gray now "supports" removal of the quotes.


 * The 2nd Wilbur quote ('not be in our lifetime') was very good and could definitely go in the Wright brothers article. It doesn't belong here, though. Adding it unbalanced the text for no reason, other than to fulfill an editor's well-known personal bias against the WB and in favor of GW.


 * The section title 'Determination' is not mine; I did not originally add a separate section for the quotes. I put in the quotes to illustrate the historically noteworthy fact that at virtually the same moment in history, both these men had a passion to build and pilot a flying machine, were willing to risk their lives doing it, and used quite similar language to express their feelings about the challenge. If anything, GW benefits from the comparison with Wilbur. Adding more text to describe the frustration and disappointment that each man felt while striving for his goal would expand the text far beyond its original limited size and the purpose for which I wrote it. Our efforts should now be focused on the many other parts of this article that are in serious need of editing, trimming, and cleanup. DonFB (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger, I do not understand what the purpose of this quote is in an article about G.W.'s work. Is this quote supposed to indicate that Wilbur Wright was downcast around the time of G.W.'s supposed flights ? Is it to demonstrate that Wilbur Wright was not fully dedicated to solving the puzzle of powered, controlled human flight ? Please state what your purpose is in including this quote.

The only relevance I can see would be if we accepted that G.W. flew in the modern meaning of the word, which this article must not do. To advocate for the claims made regarding G.W. and The First Flight seems to me to not be the purpose of this article. Roger, is that what you believe this article is meant to do ?

I will ask you directly - What is the purpose you see in this Wiki article about G.W. ?

Carroll F. Gray76.93.40.250 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will first explain why I added the new quote from Wilbur into the Determination section. DonFB has argued for the inclusion of this section based on the strong determination of Wilbur, and that it is a compliment to Whitehead to be associated with such a famous, successful person with such a strong determination. But now we see that Wilbur's determination was not strong at all, it broke down completely when confronted with a small setback. This makes the Determination section less worth in the light of Wilburs flip-flopping "determination". So I again request that it should be removed. It should not have been added at all, because feelings of strong determination are very common. Practically all people who have achieved anything, plus hundreds of millions of people who have not achieved anything worth mentioning have had a feeling of strong determination, it is simply a part of the macho-manly-culture we live in. The culture which forces boys to become hardened men is responsible for a lot of violence, bullying, and results like alcoholism, fanaticism, terrorism, wifebeating, football huligans, rapes, mental and stressrelated illnesses, serial killers, school shootings, etc.. I am trying to work against that kind of culture pattern and that is the main reason why I do not want writings about "strong determination" to be included in this article. It is irrelevant, and not unique in any way, and the two people associated in this way did not like each other and none of them would like to be associated with the other in this way. The article is already too cluttered and this is a section which can easily be sacrificed to clean up the article. Roger491127 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) - I share your view of bullying and the rest, Roger, but that doesn't answer my question - which was, what is the purpose you see in this Wiki article about G.W. ?

As for Wilbur Wright, I think your view that his desire (I'll not use the word "determination" here) "broke down completely when confronted with a small setback" is remarkably ill-informed. His moment of doubt soon spurred him to even greater efforts to solve the question of how to control an aerial machine in flight, which he did (with some degree of assistance from brother Orville - who, perhaps, had an insight prompted by or offered by George Spratt) - very soon after his greatest doubt. I refer you back to that back-and-forth we had about the Wright Patent being an issue of control, not the design of the machine.

You are far too harsh on Wilbur Wright and far too uncritical and accepting of G.W., it seems to me. To call what W.W. encountered as a "small setback" only betrays your own lack of awareness about what was involved and what actually happened. Don't be so quick to believe any and every snippet of negative commentary regarding Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright, while being equally as quick to accept anything positive said about G.W.

Can you honestly say that G.W. offering to manufacture and sell, in 1902, a $2,000 aeroplane capable of carrying 6 people sounds reasonable to you ? Does G.W.'s offer sound the least little bit suspect to you ?

I can confidently assure you that the Wm. J. O'Dwyer/S. Randolph book "History By Contract" is not 100% accurate, complete or truthful. It has a slant, a bias, and should be read as such.

Please do answer what you believe the purpose is of the Wiki article about G.W.

What is you view of why we're doing this ?

Do you believe the purpose of the Wiki article is to state G.W. was the first human to make a powered flight ?

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -

Purpose of this article
To Carroll F. Gray: "Please do answer what you believe the purpose is of the Wiki article about G.W. What is you view of why we're doing this ? Do you believe the purpose of the Wiki article is to state G.W. was the first human to make a powered flight ?"

My purpose is to establish the truth, as far as it can be established based on the evidence we can uncover. I can agree with this quote:

Air Enthusiast magazine wrote in January 1988:

"The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test "hop", witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut. For this assertion to be conclusively disproved, the Smithsonian must do much more than pronounce him a hoax while wilfully turning a blind eye to all the affidavits, letters, tape recorded interviews and newspaper clippings which attest to Weisskopf's genius."

And arguments like the one you use in your web page: "Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines." is simply silly and the effect of such arguments becomes a support for Whitehead, because people who read it conclude that if the anti-Whitehead people have to resort to such silly arguments they obviously have nothing substantial to discredit Whitehead with. Roger491127 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The following statement, from the text above,
 * "My purpose is to establish the truth, as far as it can be established based on the evidence we can uncover."
 * conflicts irreconcilably with the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as stated on the Wikipedia Verifiability page:


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROVEIT


 * The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to present reliable, verifiable information. The issue of "truth"--and the battle to establish it--has nothing to do with Wikipedia. An editor's job is to find and present information that is already established in outside sources that meet Wikipedia guidelines. Opinions from reliable sources can be included, but an editor who tries to establish the "truth" does not understand what Wikipedia is or how it works. It is fine to include plenty of information from good sources, but not for the purpose of establishing "truth". I have explained this before in discussions about this article. Nothing has changed since the last time I explained it. DonFB (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are playing a wordgame here, DonFB, I am as aware as you are of the rules of wikipedia, and as far as can be verified it seems clear that, in light of all the witnesses who have signed affidavits or are recorded when interviewed, that Whitehead did more than a hop or two, he flew a motorized airplane distances which reached from 200m to 1 and a half mile, and if we believe his own description and one witness even 11km. With over 25 witnesses and one reporter who verify this his achievements cannot be ignored or pronounced a hoax. He also showed many times that his flights were controlled, as he always landed undamaged on his four wheels or on water, and he landed exactly where he wanted to land, and avoided crashing into any of the hinders which were present for his nr 21 and 22 planes. Roger491127 (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazingly, after years of editing here, you still display the same fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia that you always have. Your comments above ("you are playing a wordgame...") focus on what you believe is "truth" and ignore completely the basic principle of Wikipedia: its purpose is not to determine "truth". You speak of the GW activities as if they are accepted as fact by researchers, when they are not. His activities remain in dispute by researchers, although not by you. You are certainly allowed to voice your opinion here in the Discussion, but never in the article itself. However, your perpetual proclamations about about the "truth" of the events are completely irrelevant, and frankly destructive, to effective and fair editing of this article. DonFB (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Roger, I do not think that my observation regarding Louise Tuba Whitehead is the least bit "silly" - regardless of any supposed unexpected consequences, such as the one you propose.

Once again - and try to remember this - with respect to aviation history, I do not consider myself an "anti-Whitehead" person, neither am I a "pro-Wright" person - I am a "pro-TRUTH" and "pro-FACT" person and an "anti-FALSEHOODS" and "anti-UNINFORMED SPECULATION" person. So, I'm sure you will kindly stop referring to me as "anti-Whitehead." It seems you need to have an 'enemy' of sorts in order to argue - but argumentation is a process not a reason to spread false accusations or to question a person's integrity simply because you do not agree.

As I read DonFB's comments above, I agree wholeheartedly. The reason I am here spending time on this is not to establish A Truth, it is to make the article about G.W. as complete and balanced (non-advocating) as possible. I work to bring out that elusive element known as "Truth" (as opposed to falsehoods) and those slippery things known as "Facts" in my own personal written work, but both are subject to revision over time as new research brings forth previously unknown material, and or new insights are offered. I understand that the process and purpose here are different from what I normally do with respect to aviation history.

Roger - I've noticed that you've chosen to not respond to the more difficult questions I've directly asked you.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -- Roger, I think you missed this question (above, in the "James Dickie, more" section) and I wonder what your answer is...

"But the choice which presents itself is that Howell falsely stated in his Herald article of 18 August 1901 that Dickie was present - or - Dickie was present and (as you say) was not acquainted with Nr. 21 ("that aeroplane"). It cannot be both ways."

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dickie witnessed about an airplane motor which discredited Whitehead because the motor was far too big and heavy for an airplane. It was later revealed that the motor he talked about was never intended for use in an airplane. When we add to that Dickie's phone interview, quoted above, I think we can safely decide that whatever Dickie said we should not believe it because he was obviously very angry at Whitehead and he used every opportunity to discredit him. Roger491127 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -- Do you believe Dickie was present during the 14 August 1901 events ? Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -- Also, about that quote from Air Enthusiast magazine with which you fully agree... I do not understand how anyone who values truth over falsehoods could ever agree that "The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test 'hop', witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut."

I would like to take that statement, with which you say you agree, step by step... 1) the sheer amount of "evidence amassed" has very little to do with the quality or veracity of that "evidence" - only its quantity 2) how does a person write "strongly indicates, beyond reasonable doubt" - "indicates" merely means "points to" or "suggests" - so is the article's author really saying that a large amount of untested, unverified evidence suggests beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest standard of legal proof) ? This is absurd on its face. Pile up truck loads of untested unverified "evidence" and the case is proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, No, it is not.

This reminds me of the use of "evidence" in the Salem Witch Trials, which amassed evidence which somehow proved beyond a reasonable doubt that many women were witches... it is a fantasy flight of another type for the article's author to invoke the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his article. The word I would use for this is "puffery."

Then we are treated to a completely self-serving definition of The First Flight, which, we are told, involves control (yes, it should be controlled), power (yes, we are discussing powered human flight), distance and sustainability (yes, more than a hop - which, by the way, is how more than one "witness" described G.W.'s "flights" - as hops), and is witnessed by a member of the press (why not a judge or a military commission or a police official or a firefighter or a professor or weather station operators or lifeguards - the answer is obviously, to make this definition fit G.W.'s presumed events of 14 August 1901).

I urge you, Roger, to reconsider your agreement with that quote.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

New portrait
I replaced the grainy background with a more unified background, this makes it more pleasant to the eye, and it also reduced picture size to 90 kB. But remember that this photo was made 120 years ago. We can not demand the same picture quality as in modern photos. But this portrait looks good to me. Roger491127 (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reduced image size, as it was much too big and slows loading of the page, as I explained previously. DonFB (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I saved the complete page, first with your portrait size, size = 662 605 bytes

Then with my size, result = 696 802 bytes

The difference in loading time is a few percent, so it cannot effect the loading time of this page in any significant way. Roger491127 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You must use a really slow phone modem and use a stop watch to be able to even see any difference. Notice that the full size of this web page with all the pictures is more than half a megabyte, what difference does then 40 kilobytes do? I also looked at the page in both firefox, internet explorer and opera, and the bigger picture size looks better in IE and opera, it looks the same in firefox. Roger491127 (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have customized my Opera and Firefox browsers heavily, for example using bigger fonts because I am 60 years old and my eyes can not cope with the small font sizes young people use. But I practically never use internet explorer and have not custumized it in any way, so I use it as a reference, when I want to see what a web page looks like to most people, who use IE without any personal customizations. And the portrait of Whitehead looks really small in it, withyour size, leaving a lot of unused white space around it, and it causes a big white space below the fact rectangle. With my portrait size you can see his face much more clearly, and it doesn't waste a lot of space around it and below it.

Even if you use a very old 600 bytes per second modem, and this page takes ten minutes to load, what does it matter if it takes ten minutes and 25 seconds instead, at least you get to see a good portrait on your 6 inch black and white display, (the computer equipment I used 25 years ago) instead of a stamp sized portrait which looks like anybody. Roger491127 (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Picture is much bigger than needed and loads slowly. See other Wikipedia biography articles. Get rid of the sections "Herald-Journal - Jan 19, 1937" and "Reading Eagle - Jan 18, 1937" and put the information someplace appropriate in other existing sections of the article (or External Links) to reduce the size of the Table of Contents. DonFB (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you understand that the difference in loading time of this article is so little affected by the size of the portrait that it doesn't matter at all? Can you tell how fast this page loads with your size portrait and my size portrait? As you have referred to the loading time as the reason for using your size it is up to you to put numbers behind your statement. How big is the difference between loading 662 605 bytes and loading 696 802 bytes? Roger491127 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for your timing of loading 696 802 bytes versus loading 662 605 bytes. While you are making these timing experiments to motivate the use of the smaller size, in spite of the ugly white spaces it creates, I can tell you that this article loads in around 0.2 seconds in my browser, so the difference between the two sizes of the portrait should be around 0.004 seconds. Roger491127 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It takes longer to load when I open the page because it's too big. I do not see any "ugly" white space. Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. DonFB (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How much longer, is the issue. A difference of a few percent of the article size is not even possible to notice by the human brain, no matter what kind of line you are on, it can only be measured with a very accurate measuring program. I see a lot of empty white spaces when your portrait size is used. And in my eyes that is ugly. I don't care if you see it as beautiful or whatever, it is still big holes in the article. It would not be accepted in a newspaper. Roger491127 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You write quite well. It's a shame you don't spend the energy you put into stuff like this into helping edit this article so it reads more smoothly and easily. We both agree the article is "ugly," but not because of white space. For example, thanks for moving the Crane text into the Research section, but it would have been wonderful if you had made some slight effort to do some real writing/editing so it flows with the other text, instead of just dumping it in as is. That kind of editing would not be accepted in a newspaper, and it doesn't do much to make this article easier to read. DonFB (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That was just the first operation to move the text to a suitable place, and some quick editing to inform the reader that the text comes from two newspapers. It can probably be reformulated further later to become more streamlined. But let's get back to your timing experiments, how many percent faster does the page load with your size of the portrait? Does the difference make any difference to the human mind? Do you have a built-in atomic clock in your brain? How much does it bother you that it takes 2 or 3 thousands of a second longer for the article to load? Roger491127 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be wonderful if you would focus your energy on improving the content of the article. DonFB (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could maybe do that if I didn't have my hands full with defending myself on this discussion page. If I use a word in a way you think is wrong you throw the whole bible of wikipedia rules at me, and if I insert a better portrait you go on changing it to a version you prefer, justifying it with a totally unreasonable timing reason. You seem to be very stubborn and you seem to think that you always are more right than anybody else. So what can I do, other than try to explain things to you until you show some reason or allow someone else to have the final word sometimes. Roger491127 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your choice of words was not wrong, but indicated a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I welcome other people's opinions here about the portrait or verifiability, or "truth," or Wikipedia guidelines, or anything else. Actually, if you have read closely, you see that someone else also criticized the oversize portrait. DonFB (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read everything in this section, New portrait, and I cannot see anybody but you who criticized the portrait size. Who? Where? Roger491127 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your new friend Carroll, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustave_Whitehead#About_DonFB.27s_latest_changes Look below the first horizontal line in the text. DonFB (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha, this text: "I thought the very large image of G.W. was "stretched" too much and showed signs of falling apart, visually. I like the current size."

That was a problem I thought I fixed when I made the background uniform, instead of the "falling apart, visually" which I thought was because the background was so dirty and patchy. Roger491127 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -- My own opinion is that the image of G.W. in the larger size does not look appropriate. In addition, I see that the edges are becoming pixelated in that larger size and the image is degraded slightly. I will post an image myself and urge Roger to please stop this insane back and forth over this one photograph. If this sort of nonsense continues, I will do the rewrites and photo changes myself and then Roger can contend with that. The article is the important thing, not G.W.'s image. I support the size DonFB has established for G.W.'s image.

I am not pleased with your attitude or your lack of positive contributions, Roger. Your attitude is best summed up as confrontational and abusive - as with your first contact with me by e-mail. I, in turn, have been courteous to you even when pointing out your many serious lapses. This is not your article and is not meant to prove anything about what G.W. did or did not do. With the approach you've taken, you should set up your own web page advocating for G.W., but this Wiki article is not the place for that. I would be fine with providing a link to any web page you set up. Please, stop behaving as a bratty child would and begin to do some cooperative work with DonFB and me, as the adult you are.

It's a shame you're unwilling to engage the questions I have asked you. If you had, you might have learned a few things you didn't know.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC) -

What is the Difference ?
Roger, what do you think of the powered, heavier-than-air, human "flight" by Clement Ader on 9 October 1890, which was witnessed and affidavits were given ?

If the point of this is to provide evidence (to "prove") that G.W. made a powered, heavier-than-air, human "flight" prior to 17 December 1903 (the Wright flights), why would it matter to establish that G.W. made a powered, heavier-than-air, human "flight" on 14 August 1901, if Clement Ader made a "flight" in 1890, eleven years earlier ? If you do not believe that C. Ader "flew" - why not ?

What makes the claims made on behalf of Ader (1890) any different from the claims made on behalf of G.W. (1901) ?

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in your irrelevant (to this article) ideas. But I can inform you about a very nice web page (actually 4 pages) showing model airplanes ordered in chronological order, beginning with 1884 - Mozhaiskii Monoplane. It shows pictures of all airplanes, except the 1890 - Ader Eole, and it is the first time I have seen what the 1894 - Maxim's Test Rig looked like. It can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/aerohydro/mfm/scale1.htm Roger491127 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger, The point of this Discussion page is to engage in discussion, to have a conversation. If you are saying that you will not respond to the questions I have asked of you, then you are not participating properly. As my flyingmachines.org web site demonstrates, I am aware of many pre-1903 attempts at powered, heavier-than-air human flight. Indeed, you'll find a number of the people I mention on that site who are not mentioned elsewhere on the web. Perhaps that is why the BBC selected my web site as a resource, and why it has had many hundreds of thousands of visits.

If you will not defend or discuss your position then I will take that as an admission that you cannot defend your position.

The question about Clement Ader's "flight" is very relevant to the matter of G.W.'s supposed "flight." The two matters are very similar, both having witnesses who gave signed statements and both happening before 17 December 1903, among other things. There are many good reasons why Ader's "flight" is not accepted as The First Flight, and for similar reasons neither is G.W.'s. So, if you, Roger, believe that G.W. made "flights" in 1901, you would logically have to believe that Ader did, also, but eleven years earlier than G.W. It seems to me that it is not logically possible to believe in the one without believing in the other. As for me, I do not believe that G.W. (1901) or Maxim (1894) or Ader (1890) or Aleksandr Fyodorovich Mozhaiski (1888) or Felix du Temple (1874) made "flights" - yet, I also believe that all managed to lift off the ground and move through the air, for short distances, in powered, heavier-than-air machines.

Do you believe that G.W. made a flight of some 11 kilometers (7 miles) in 1902 ?

Do you believe, as I have asked you previously, that G.W. could have built an aeroplane in 1902 capable of carrying 6 people for a price of $2,000 ?

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What I believe doesn't mean anything in wikipedia. What matters is what can be verified from reasonably reliable sources. When it comes to Ader I have not studied him at all, but it doesn't matter because this article is about Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Verifiable" in Wikipedia does not mean what you said:
 * "what can be verified"
 * "Verifiable" in Wikipedia does not mean "verifiable information" or "verifiable facts" or "verifiable truth".


 * "Verifiable" in Wikpedia means the source is verifiable. It means a cited source can be found and examined. The Wikipedia Verifiability page explains:


 * "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source"


 * source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources


 * The actual information presented by the source, even though it is "reliable," may or may not be accurate or the "truth". "Verifiable" means the source is verifiable, not the facts in question.


 * Have you ever read the Wikipedia pages about verifiability, reliable sources or neutral point of view? It's not too late. DonFB (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you are playing word games again, why don't you criticize Carroll for the much more obvious breach of wikipedia rules when he asks me over and over again what I believe about this and that, which you should know has no relevance at all in wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Now you are playing word games again" is the lazy and unproductive way to respond to important points about how Wikipedia works--points you have never seemed able or willing to understand.
 * I'll leave it up to you how you want to respond to Carroll. DonFB (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that I didn't even use the word "Verifiable", the word you are making such a fuzz about. You are stretching from my use of the word verified to the word "Verifiable" and further on to the wikipedia rule about "Wikipedia:Verifiability". How do you conclude that I didn't talk about something else? After all I am from Sweden, so I am trying all the time to find a suitable word for what I want to say. That doesn't mean that I am not aware of the rules of wikipedia,it just means that I cannot always find exactly the word I mean. Roger491127 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What does your phrase "what can be verified from reasonably reliable sources" mean? Is there a different way you want to express the thought? DonFB (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a comment about what anyone said in this Discussion. It is simply more information that is relevant to our discussion.
 * I made a suggestion today on the Discussion page for the Wikipedia Verifiability Guideline page. Someone responded and said that to "verify" in Wikipedia means that the "material" must in the "source". That is, if the text in a Wikipedia article makes a statement about something, with a reference to a source, that source must contain the information ("material") which was included in the Wikipedia article. So, by that definition, "verify" or "verifiability" means making sure a source actually contains the particular information that the Wikipedia article says the source contains. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Is it a breach of Wikipedia rules to seek out and establish an editor's biases ? It seems to me that if one of the goals is to provide an article free of bias, we should be fully aware of the bias each editor brings to the discussion and to their editing and writing - and Roger, you bring considerable bias to this matter, to the point where it is difficult to do anything productive with you. Is that your game ? to be a spoiler who drives everyone away so then you have this article all to yourself ? Well, that is not going to happen - so start behaving and become cooperative and let's work to complete this article.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have done what DonFB told me to do, to remove two sections and instead incorporate the content into another section. That is an example of how cooperative I am.

But I could not respond to your questions about what I believe about this and that, and even about Ader who I have never studied, because it is against the rules of wikipedia to express what you believe. That has nothing to do with what wikipedia is all about. I can understand that you become angry with me because I cannot "discuss" beliefs as you want to discuss, but the reason for this anger is your lack of knowledge about how wikipedia works. You broke the rules of wikipedia when you asked me over and over again what I believe, and I would have broken the rules too, if I had replied to such questions. Roger491127 (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit
I changed the wording ("Significance" section) of Orville Wright's denial about visiting G.W. to include a phrase quoted directly from the 1937 Wright/Black letter. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving quotes from two newspapers in 1937 into the Research section, chronologically placed between Stella Randolph 1937 and Whiteheads son Charles radio interview years later. Note that these quotes were not easy to make, I had to copy them word for word from pictures of newspaper articles which cannot be copied simply through the use of copy and paste. Roger491127 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To remove irrelevant clutter and make the article a little shorter I removed a text beginning with: "That did not sit well with the North Carolina legislature," which was irrelevant and edited to include discrediting formulations about Whitehead, comparing him to P T Barnum, another great showman, promoter and circus man, P. T. Barnum, who said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

The idea to remove this text has been suggested by someone else on the discussion page and I agree. History by politicians is just as bad as history by contract, because politicians usually say what they think people want to hear, to get re-elected. Roger491127 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not try a compromise between portrait size 329 and 180, I just made it 230 wide. What do you both think about that? Does it still look "stretched and like falling apart, Carroll?Roger491127 (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Carroll wrote: "The article is the important thing, not G.W.'s image." I think that if we write an article about Whitehead, than the portrait of him is one of the most essential parts of the article, and one of the first things people see when they find this article. The portrait should represent Whitehead as well as possible. To achieve that it cannot be very small, but it cannot be too big either. It should fit into the fact section as well as possible. It should show his face and shoulders but not some designer oval which steals most of the space and makes his face into just a small area of the picture. Roger491127 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A Problem For Supporters of G.W.'s "Flight" of 14 August 1901
Whatever the configuration of G.W.'s Nr. 21 monoplane, to make a flight it would need to obey physical laws.

The well-known series of tests at Manching, Bavaria, Germany, of the "Whitehead No. 21-B" (built in the 1990's by the Gustav Weisskopf Research Society) resulted in the conclusion that take-off of the No. 21-B would happen at 52 kph (32.31 mph) and that a speed of at least 49 kph (30.447 mph) would be required for sustained flight through the air. Using G.W.'s statement of the time aloft and distance traversed during the second "flight" of 14 August 1901, a speed of 35.4 kph (22 mph) was reached.

So, using G.W.'s own numbers and the results of the G.W.R.S. tests, we should probably conclude that the 14 August 1901 "flight" was impossible, since the speed (distance/time aloft) fell considerably below the 30/32 mph required.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) -

Discussing bias
DonFB, is discussing the motives and beliefs of editors on the Discussion page a breach of Wikipedia rules ? I distinguish between the article, which must be devoid of such editor's beliefs, and this Discussion page, where I thought we are supposed to engage each other in discussions about our collective and individual approaches to the material which constitutes the basis for the article. This is in keeping, I thought, with my listing of biases I saw in the article - I listed those biases I saw in the article here on the Discussion page but wouldn't have posted it in the article, obviously.

Am I mistaken about what we are supposed to be doing here on the Discussion page ?

Thanks for any clarification you'd care to offer.

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know and cannot say definitively if "discussing the motives and beliefs of editors" is a breach of Wiki Etiquette. I'm sure there are editors who are more knowledgeable than me about Wikipedia guidelines and might be able to give a definitive answer. Obviously, the subject of personal bias comes up. I would say the appropriate thing to do is to discuss why you believe an Article shows bias, as opposed to exploring an individual editor's bias. You did point out what you believe to be this article's bias, and that was very appropriate.


 * You perceive that we "engage each other in discussions about our collective and individual approaches to the material". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "individual approaches to the material". We all have our biases, so the idea in Wikipedia is to try to discuss the source material on its merits, and how the material is presented in the article. Of course, that leaves plenty of room for debate about both the "merits" and the "presentation".


 * The top of most or all Discussion pages has a brief introduction that says Discussion should be about the article, not the subject of the article. That may seem strange, but, again, the idea is to improve the article, not to "seek the truth" about its subject matter, or to use one's "reason" and "rationality" to argue about what really happened, or how something works, or who did or said what, or whether certain events are believable. "Improving the article" means everything has to point back to what the established sources say about the subject, rather than us drawing conclusions about the subject based on the sources, or, obviously, based on our biases. Wikipedia articles, you may know, are not intended or designed to "prove" anything.


 * In addition to personal bias, the other thorny issue is whether a source itself is biased. I think it's ok for people to use logic and reason and so forth to try to prove why a source is biased. But that's different than using logic and reason to try to prove that something did or did not happen in actual history, or science, or whatever. I would also say that one source could be used to demonstrate the bias of another. The Wikipedia Guideline on Reliable Sources contains lots of information about source bias and reliability of sources.


 * In my opinion, several of the sources for this article are biased on each side of the controversy. However, rather than attempting to exclude a source, my approach has been to make sure any of the information in the article from those sources is clearly attributed to them. If information from a source perceived to be biased is in an article, one can challenge the source. What I've tried to do is find opposing information from another source, which itself might be biased. I have, however, on one occasion staunchly objected to, and excluded, a source which was a personal blog. The Reliable Sources Guideline gives explicit guidance on that issue. I suppose one might regard all this apparent bias with alarm. But perhaps bias plus bias can lead toward "balance". Dueling biases probably won't lead to the "truth," but that's not the goal anyway.


 * Obviously, it's hard to resist pointing out what one believes is bias in another editor's thinking. I would say the better way to go is to point to text in the article (as you have) which shows apparent bias, or is just plain inaccurate, without necessarily pointing a finger at someone because of the bias one perceives they have. That's a slippery slope which can take one into personal remarks, and there is a Guideline on that whole issue.


 * Needless to say, the issue of "accuracy" can lead to all the same kind of debates that occur over "reliability" or bias of a source. If two sources that are "reasonably" reliable say different things, both things can go in the article, but with clear attribution for each. I would say this article may have a greater number of explicit attribution statements than the "typical" biographical article. I put the attributions in, because so few of the "claims" or "assertions" in this article about GW's work are widely or universally accepted. When information is universally accepted, or nearly so, a big number of attribution statements probably aren't necessary in an article.


 * Full disclosure: I have been sorely tempted during discussions about this article and have given in occasionally and accused an editor of bias, so I don't claim any purity here. But I would say the appropriate approach is to focus on bias in the article itself, and go from there. DonFB (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

--- DonFB, thanks that's very clearly stated and helpful. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC) ---

Added page header
I added a Discussion page intro, which was missing for some reason.

A link in the intro ("not a forum") goes to a page which says, in part:

"...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article...." DonFB (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC) ---

New Changes
DonFB: I am satisfied with the latest changes you have made, the medium sized portrait and the short text which replaced the long text from politicians in North Carolina.

O'Dwyer is a very trustworthy investigator, but even he has written things which are doubtful, like the story about Whitehead being shipwrecked on the south coast of USA and then he worked his way up through USA to the north-east. Another version is that he worked his way back to Germany on a ship, 1893-1894, and then emigrated to the Boston area of USA in 1895.

But the most important part of his life is between 1899 and January 1902. This is also the period we know most about, because of the friends, neighbors and helpers who witnessed about this time.

We know some things about how O'Dwyer interviewed witnesses, like the old but clearminded mrs Koteles. She was shown a number of pictures and she pointed out without hesitation a picture of nr 21 as the plane she had witnessed.

The witnesses is a very important part of the article. How they were interviewed and how specific questions they were asked is very important, if we can find out as much as possible about that. Locating the present location of the O'Dwyer collection is also important, if we could find an email address to the people who manage that collection we could ask important questions about how witnesses were asked questions and how they answered. Roger491127 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "...we could ask important questions..."
 * That would probably be original research. If information from an O'Dwyer collection is published, in print or online, either by them or by someone else, that information could become a source for the article. But if an editor asks questions, in effect, performs an interview, to collect information which has not previously been made public by the original source or by some other established source, I believe that's original research. DonFB (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A way around that problem is to explain to the institution which now manages the O'Dwyer collection that they should be more active and publish the most important parts of it on the web. Then we can quote their published documents and recordings. That's why I want to find them and get into contact with them, so I can explain the need to publish the methodology of interviewing witnesses and the results of those investigations. When a witness of a crime is called in to identify the suspect the witness should not be shown the suspect alone, the police should find 6-7 more similar people and show them together with the suspect and ask the witness if he or she can point out the person he saw. O'Dwyer seems to have used a similar method, showing the witnesses a bunch of pictures of airplanes, asking the witnesses which picture shows the airplane they witnessed. We need to know more about the procedure for interviewing witnesses, so the airplane type, the date of observation, the length of the flight, etc.. can be determined, so we can publish in more detail what the 26+ witnesses saw and when they saw it. I have read that one of the witnesses was very sure about which year and month it was he saw Whitehead fly, because it was the same year he had returned to Bridgeport from some place overseas, for example. Roger491127 (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you should be aware that there are factual errors in "History By Contract" - not simply doubtful things - some of the errors are very serious, supporting misleading, even quite false, conclusions. Some appear calculated. I have begun re-reading "History By Contract" and have spotted several of these sorts of errors, factual and errors of interpretation and errors of false conclusions.

One instance, I cannot find a source cited for the purported Manly/Hodge letter of 20 September 1901.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Whitehead/Weisskopf Article Structure
The following is the structure I said I would suggest for the Wikipedia article. Do as you will with it.

GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD - GUSTAV ALBIN WEISSKOPF

SUMMARY

EARLY LIFE - Germany and High Seas

USA 1897 - 1927 (life details)

CLAIMED FLIGHTS
 * Pennsylvania - April or May 1899
 * Connecticut - August 1901
 * Long Island Sound - January 1902

AERIAL MACHINES
 * Boston - 1897
 * Flapping-wing glider
 * Lilienthal-type glider
 * New York - 1897
 * Lilienthal-type toy gliders & kites
 * Pittsburgh - 1899
 * Steam-powered machine
 * Connecticut - 1901 - 1911
 * Nr. 21 monoplane
 * Nr. 22 monoplane
 * Nr. 23 monoplane
 * Nr. 24 monoplane
 * Triplane glider
 * Albatross glider
 * Large Albatross glider (1908 Patent)
 * Large Albatross powered monoplane
 * "Whitehead's Effort" Albatross biplane
 * 60-rotor vertical lift machine
 * Modern Reproductions
 * Kosch Whitehead Nr. 21 monoplane
 * Historical Flight Research Committee Gustave Whitehead (HFRC-GW) Nr. 21-B monoplane

AERIAL MACHINE PARTNERSHIPS
 * W. D. Custead
 * Stanley Yale Beach & Frederick C. Beach
 * Witteman Brothers

ENGINES
 * Locomobile-type steam engine - 1899
 * Oxy-acetylene engine
 * Kerosene engine
 * Two-cycle gasoline engine for glider

CONTROVERSIES
 * Flight Claims
 * Affidavits
 * Stella Randolph (1934-1937, 1966, 1978)
 * William J. O'Dwyer (1963-1978)
 * James B. Crane (1936, 1949)
 * Claimed Significance
 * Claimed Contacts
 * Otto Lilienthal & Gustav Lilienthal
 * Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright


 * Flight Counter-Claims
 * Charles Gibbs-Smith
 * Philip Jarrett
 * Orville Wright
 * Smithsonian Institution
 * Disputed Significance
 * Disputed Contacts
 * Otto Lilienthal & Gustav Lilienthal
 * Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright

SEE ALSO

NOTES

EXTERNAL LINKS

PUBLICATIONS
 * SUPPORTERS
 * Stella Randolph - 1937 (etc.)
 * Stella Randolph - 1966 (etc.)
 * William J. O'Dwyer & Stella Randolph - 1978 (etc.)
 * Albert Wüst (etc.)

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC) - DonFB, i added a reply to your text beginning with ""...we could ask important questions..." That would probably be original research. If information from an O'Dwyer collection is published," It is  placed below that text, a few pages up from this note. Roger491127 (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC) -