Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 7

New section so we do not have to scroll up several pages to reply
Yes, let's resume discussion of the GW article. Let me just explain that when the issue of stability and controllability came up it felt natural to make a comparison with the Wrights. Based on affidavits it is obvious that Whitehead's airplane was aerodynamically very stable in the air, as he could take his hands off the controls and the airplane continued to keep its attitude and direction on its own. When it comes to controllability the affidavits also show that Whitehead could control his airplanes 21 and 22 very well. He landed exactly where he wanted to land, he could fly along a street in a town and back again without crashing into houses, telephone poles, people, horses, trees,etc.. and he could land twice on two places on avenues which were free of hinders and long enough. According to affidavits he needed around 60m long start and land stretches, and it is not easy to find 60m long stretches of flat surfaces in a town.

According to a source dug up by Carroll he could also make a small course correction during a landing which otherwise was handled by the airplane after the motor had been turned off.

So the only conclusion we can come to, based on the sources, is that Whitehead had excellent control of his airplanes 21 and 22 and that those airplanes were very stable during flight. Roger491127 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, please specify the "source dug up by Carroll" - thank you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research
Recently, User:Roger491127 wrote: "Based on affidavits it is obvious that Whitehead's airplane was aerodynamically very stable in the air..."

He also wrote:

"So the only conclusion we can come to, based on the sources, is that Whitehead had excellent control of his airplanes 21 and 22 and that those airplanes were very stable during flight."

Those comments appear in another section of this discussion

User:Roger491127 is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is, however, making an unwarranted presumption that "we" can only come to a particular conclusion. Nevertheless, I'm not overly concerned about his personal presumptions appearing on the Discussion page.

However, if User:Roger491127 intends to add such statements about Whitehead to any Wikipedia article, he is demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. As the smartest human being he knows (by his own admission), User:Roger491127 should not find the following information too difficult to understand.

These are quotations from the Wikipedia No Original Research Policy page (WP:OR):
 * "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."


 * "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source..."


 * "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."


 * "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."

Affidavits are a primary source. A newspaper article is a secondary source.

User:Roger491127 has stated his conclusion (although he says it is the "only" conclusion "we" can make) that Whitehead aircraft 21 and 22 "were very stable during flight." There is a single mention in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald newspaper article of 8/18/1901 that relates to aircraft stability, although the article does not use the words "stability" or "stable." That part of the Herald article could be quoted or paraphrased in the Wikipedia Whitehead article, with a reference. However, the sweeping generalization that User:Roger491127 makes here in Discussion, and potentially might add to the article, is clearly in violation of the Original Research policy. Any such statement of his personal opinion or "conclusion" about Whitehead aircraft which is added to the Whitehead article, or added to any other Wikipedia article about aviation or any other subject, would be subject to swift deletion, as supported by this policy.

User:Roger491127 has previously characterized quoted text from Wikipedia policies as "word games." In his mind, perhaps they are. But on this site, responsible and rational editors use policies and guidelines to improve articles. DonFB (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearly stating the Wikipedia policy, DonFB. I can't imagine anyone will have trouble understanding what you've said. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Whitehead and skeptics
I added the following: "As to whether Mrs. Whitehead resented matters, Stella Randolph wrote 'Mrs. Whitehead talked very freely and frankly with the writer, who made several visits to her home, in the 1930's, and there was never any intimation that she harbored any resentment about the past.'" Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

EVIDENCE -> Witnesses
The statement is made "In the 1930s, witnesses gave 15 sworn and signed affidavits, most of them attesting to Whitehead flights; one attests to a flight over Long Island Sound.[25]"


 * The above is an editor's own summary, not a quote from or even a paraphrase from Randolph or O'Dwyer.

I did a count (which might constitute "original research") of the 15 affidavits in Randolph's 1937 book and this is the breakdown: 4 say they saw flight(s) and affirmatively say GW was aboard; 4 saw flight(s) and do not affirmatively say GW was aboard; 4 did not see any flights; 1 saw a tethered flight with no one aboard. This adds to 13 because two people each gave two affidavits (one of which was disavowed as incorrect in Randolph's 1966 book). So, the statement as it appears in the GW Wiki article is incorrectly stated.

Four of 15 affidavits state GW was aboard and flew, not "most".

Since this is an editor's own construction of the meaning of the 1930's affidavits, I believe it should be deleted. Comments welcomed. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that little opening paragraph bothered me, too. I understand its purpose: to give a quick overview that "witnesses" (besides those named in the Herald report) were found and interviewed. But it does try to slant the tone and is a "summary" not reffed to a secondary source.


 * I'm not sure exactly what is the proper way to succinctly "summarize" the affidavits. I do think, though, that some kind of statement or expression of the affirmative/non-affirmative ratio would be a good thing to include in the article. Maybe Binksternet can advise if there is a proper and "legal" way to summarize the affidavits.


 * I have also thought, since creation of the Stella subsection, that some actual quoted text from a few of the affidavits should be included in that subsection.


 * It would be somewhat cumbersome and might be overkill, but in the Stella subsection we could quote the actual confirming phrase from each of the eight "affirmative" affidavits, with footnotes. Not sure if we would need to specify which ones said GW was "aboard". Readers could count 'em up themselves.


 * If we did that, we should also state the number of affidavits given, pointing out that Pruckner (and someone else?) gave two.


 * As long as we're on the subject, some of the 1960s interviews (as reported by Delear, I think) are pretty interesting. They include little bombshell quotes like, "all I did was watch him fly." I would favor including that. Sorry you asked?


 * Off topic: Can you specify any "mainstream" aviation history sources (books, magazines) which give a neutral description of Vuia's flights? DonFB (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would shy away from anything more than quoting a secondary source describing what the affidavits mean to the topic, but I think that bits of quoted affidavit text used sparingly to bring the historic voice to life would be nice. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that attempting to characterize the affidavits in any way will present problems. My own feeling is that it's sufficient to note that there were affidavits taken from 13 different people in the 1930's, and the statements were mixed on the topic of GW making flights. We can also state that all of the 1930's affidavits are reproduced in SR's 1966 book - people can read them for themselves and see what is said.


 * I also did a survey of the 1960's affidavits and think it is probably wisest for us here to let O'Dwyer speak for himself about them. The quote/paraphrase you mention "all I did was watch him fly" is a version of a Koteles statement which reads, "He didn't fly. He just went up and then right down." The mangled version has made the rounds.


 * It's become clear to me that there are 'problems' with some of the 1960's affidavits (and admitted problems with one 1930's affidavit, which, to her credit, SR corrected in 1966 - but the "problem" affidavit is still mentioned and quoted), however, this is not the place to spell that out in detail, or even discuss it in any detail.


 * DonFB, as for Vuia, this Romanian site has a good and surprisingly neutral summary of his work
 * http://www.biblacad.ro/Vuiaeng.htm
 * but the name "Wright" is unfortunately scrambled.


 * A good published citation is the Gibbs-Smith volume "THE INVENTION OF THE AEROPLANE (1799-1909)"; Faber and Faber Ltd., London., 1966  Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly we face a challenge in how to present specific information about the affidavits while abiding by Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies. I remain unsure how it might be done, but would welcome any suggestions.


 * A larger point I want to make is that I think we would be doing less than we reasonably can if we make no attempt to give a sense of how many affidavits, of the total, support the claim that Whitehead flew an airplane. I believe that here, in the main article, it's appropriate and even incumbent upon us to offer some level of detail about that, especially since the widely repeated Whitehead claims depend so heavily on the affidavits.


 * I came up with a count of 10 affidavits by 9 people in which the affiant explicitly states an airplane flew. They say: "I flew"; "he succeeded in flying his machine" (five instances of that phrase); "plane was started in flight"; "rose from the ground"; "flew his folding winged plane"; "recall seeing an airplane flight".


 * A count of only four who said GW "was aboard and flew" seems to seriously under represent the weight of the overall testimony. It's possible, of course, that I am applying less strict standards to the wording.


 * Here's the quote from the Frank Delear Aviation History article reproduced on History.net: "'Look, I never knew Whitehead personally or anything about his aircraft. All I did was watch him fly.' So spoke Frank Lanye, 92...."


 * Again, I'm not sure how it might be done, and as the guy who recently posted some of the Original Research rules here, I'm very much aware of the limitations we face. But I'll repeat: I think we can do more than nothing when it comes to giving specific information about the tenor or trend of the affidavits. The article has a lot of information about controversies among some of the indirectly involved personalities; it seems very reasonable that it would also offer at least a glimpse into the heart of the evidence offered by people who say they were there when the disputed events took place. I really think we owe that to the readers.


 * Thanks for the Vuia info. That biblacad.ro site (which I'd seen before) ain't neutral! DonFB (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the affidavits using the following sieve... if someone said they saw a "flight" (in reference to Whitehead's machines) that counted separately from those who explicitly stated GW was aboard. Unfortunately, the affidavits are very thin on what should have been essential follow-ups on the point of whether Whitehead actually was aboard when they saw a flight made, or whether he "made a flight" of or with one of his machines, as in the case of the one who said they saw a Whitehead machine tethered to a "stake" going in circles. When someone said GW succeeded in flying his machine that is not saying GW was aboard. Langley, for instance succeeded in flying his machines No.5 and No.6. It is not correct, I think, to say that GW was aboard when people saw GW's machine in flight, unless that person says GW was aboard.


 * So, if you read closely and read what people are saying to us, you'll see that of the 1930's affidavits, 4 say they saw a flight with GW aboard (or were aboard with him), 4 say they saw a flight but do not say GW was aboard, 4 didn't see any flights, and 1 saw a tethered flight with no one aboard. The one faulty Pruckner affidavit was "corrected" later, SR tells us.


 * Thanks for mentioning the Frank Lanye interview of 15 June 1968. This is a good example of how frustrating the interviews can be. The summary O'Dwyer offers (p.62, HBC - which Delear then quotes) fails to tell us if Lanye is saying that GW was aboard or not. O'Dwyer makes that link that GW was onboard - Lanye doesn't - when O'Dwyer writes "... friends with whom he went to see Whitehead fly..." Well, it can be argued either way, I suppose, as O'Dwyer would have it (that Lanye meant GW was aboard), or as I have said. However, we can say that Lanye did not say GW was in the craft which Lanye saw making flights. This is the main quoted part of Lanye's interview "I know nothing about the technical matters concerning airplanes, and I never knew Whitehead, nor anything at all about his aircraft," (O'Dwyer writes here "Mr. Lanye protested") "All I did was watch him fly." In common usage, when someone throws a hand glider, or operates an RC plane, the language used is "So-and-so flew their glider/plane."


 * The only other parts of Lanye's interview which were quoted, are "Other flights were made that day," "some longer and some shorter." at "Fairfield Beach" and the flight he saw was "about a quarter of a mile". I would like to be able to read or hear the entire interview, as with others O'Dwyer conducted.


 * It will take some artful crafting to not skew what is said in the GW article, but please propose a statement that covers the affidavits. As it is, what is said in the GW article is not neutral and should be either deleted or replaced.


 * As for the Romanian web site, well, I did say I found it "surprisingly" neutral, in contrast, say, to (almost any) Brazilian early flight web site. I have seen comments on the web that say Vuia flew before 17 Dec 1903, which he himself certainly never claimed, and which the Romanian site doesn't, either. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point that a "flight" could have meant a tethered one, or even, as per the Herald, unmanned. By my count, eight of the 10 affirmative affidavits give specific flight distances, ranging from 30 feet to one and a half miles. I assume that your question about whether GW was aboard relates to the type of flight asserted to have been made: tethered or free.
 * Anyway, shucks, I was hoping you or Binksternet might offer an idea how to write it; now the onus falls on me--where it belongs, undoubtedly. However, allow me to ask if there's something in Stella's book(s), which I don't own, that might offer a reasonably fair "summary" of the affidavits. It seems as if she would make some kind of "evaluative" comment, particularly in her first book, since she took the trouble to gather the statements. For now, I'll have to sleep, literally, on the matter and try to come up with an approach. In the meantime, no need to stand on ceremony: go ahead and delete. We'll continue the discussion, I'm sure.
 * Somewhat to my surprise and much to my dismay, I have learned that the internet is infested, overrun, with what I consider grandiose statements about Vuia--much of it, though not all, apparently mirrored from an earlier version of the article on this site. Trying to find something reliable and neutral for balance. DonFB (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A final check-in before sleep, but I want to post a few comments based on your (DonFB's) last post. I take the position that unless a person said they saw GW flying in his machine, it should not be said for them. If they only say some version of having seen GW's machine fly, that ought to mean without GW being aboard. We have statements that GW tested his machine as gliders before adding engines, so one could reasonably expect that a number of such gliding flights were made and seen. The critical issue, of course, and the thing which hangs heavy over the whole dicsussion, is whether GW was seen aboard one of his machines flying in it - "piloting" one of his aeroplanes - prior to 17 December 1903.


 * On that point, about 14 August 1901, we have the anonymous reporter, an elusive Mr. Cellie/Sully/Suelli (etc.), Harworth, who says he was present and saw it but was not reported as being present, and Pruckner who also said he was present 14 August 1901, but no one else seems to have seen him, either.


 * Pruckner claims to have taken turns with GW flying over Long Island Sound prior to 17 January 1902 - that's something to contemplate... Pruckner is also the only one interviewed or who signed an affidavit or wrote a letter who claims to have seen GW in flight over Long Island Sound on 17 January 1902. Of course, GW wrote that he (GW) made that flight.


 * My point is whether people were reporting having seen flights by GW's machine(s) with no one aboard, or reported having seen flights of GW's machine(s) with GW (or someone else) aboard, not whether the flights were tethered or free.


 * I have SR's 1937 book, so I will search for a summary by her, which we might be able to use. That would probably be the best thing to do, anyway - cite her. I've deleted the opening "Witnesses" summary. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Resetting Thread Indentation) --

A couple of items I'd like to talk about. First, your comment:


 * "I take the position that unless a person said they saw GW flying in his machine, it should not be said for them. If they only say some version of having seen GW's machine fly, that ought to mean without GW being aboard."

I agree with the first sentence. We should not say something specific about what GW did, unless we can reference it. The second sentence, however, is very problematic. It comes across as mere speculation. Perhaps there is some indirect circumstantial support in the sources for such an unconditional statement. However, the formulation, "that ought to mean", is a strong editorial conclusion and seems without justification in the sources. I suppose it is possible that in one or more "flights," GW was not aboard; on the other hand, I suppose it is possible that he was aboard. Such guesswork gets us nowhere, and certainly would not belong in the article.

Second, your comment:


 * "The critical issue, of course, and the thing which hangs heavy over the whole dicsussion, is whether GW was seen aboard one of his machines flying in it - "piloting" one of his aeroplanes - prior to 17 December 1903."

Here we have, I believe, a subtle (or not-so-subtle) gravitational pull to avoid allowing the article to go where it will. In writing this article, we--all editors--should try to act as if we don't know, or don't care, about the status of some generally accepted famous earlier historical event, an event which this article might conceivably undermine--not by design, but simply by presenting what the sources say. The article should stand on its own, properly sourced, without regard to its relationship to another event. If necessary, sourced text in this article could offer a conclusion about the relationship of the events it describes to the events of another time, although personally, I don't think that is necessary.

Your thoughts?

I look forward to hearing what you find in Stella's book, re: the affidavit "summary". DonFB (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not suggesting my comments as text for the article, I was only being clear about my own assessment of what people said in their various affidavits, letters and interviews. We have considerable support for GW making "flights" with his machines, unpowered and without anyone aboard, so unless some person affirmatively states that GW or someone else was aboard, I am very reluctant to assume that GW or someone else was aboard. That was all I meant. I would not want that to appear in the article - I quite agree with you.


 * I also agree re: 17 December 1903. I do not want to see the GW article state anything about 17 December 1903, but I do know that one editor has only that in mind, and believe we should be open, in this discussion - not in the article - that pressure from that quarter is part of what we are contending with in trying to frame a neutral and useful article on GW and his work.


 * SR doesn't summarize the affidavits, other than to say (SR 1937, p.44 - quoted here in full) "Other statements, oral and written have come to the writer to much the same effect as the affidavits quoted. These brief flights or hops, indicate that the longer flights made by Whitehead must have been the result of considerable work and experimentation. That the plane did not rise far from the ground may be readily understood. The engines quite apparently were of insufficient power for the weight. Furthermore, the early planes, as stated previously, took off on poorly constructed wheels. Later Whitehead used bicycle wheel - probably the small rear wheels off obsolete bicycles of the previous decade. Also, there was no adequate runway for a take-off, a handicap even for a modern plane. Other planes of that day, and much later, did not even attempt to take to the air by running along the ground. A catapult device for launching planes was used by most of the others who attained an approach to successful flight during that period." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding comparing Whitehead to the Wrights, or relating his supposed flights to Kitty Hawk 1903: Gibbs-Smith is sure that Whitehead supporters include many who wish to knock the Wrights, and that this wish drives them to prop up arguments for Whitehead. We can relate this opinion to the reader as it is that of an expert on the subject. Same with other expert sources commenting on the topic. I think the reader will want to know! I would lean this direction, as opposed to pretending not to know about the Wright's flights. Let the sources speak. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting G-S is always fine with me. I wasn't suggesting that we pretend to not know about the Wrights. However, I wouldn't want us to try to compose text for the article which attempts to address the "Who-Flew-First" morass. I'd be much happier quoting G-S. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree heartily about not composing our own text re: the morass. Binksternet, I do not mean that the article should "pretend not to know about the Wright's flights". I mean that editors should write the article neutrally, as if they don't know or care about the WB. Regarding Gibbs-Smith, I agree that "We can relate this opinion to the reader as it is that of an expert on the subject." I would be glad to see a Gibbs-Smith quote about GW added to the "Significance" section of the article.


 * Carroll, I understood that you did not intend your comments here as text for the article. However, I think the ideas behind those comments did end up influencing a couple of your edits in the "Stella Randolph Research" subsection.


 * Here are the comments:


 * "I read the affidavits using the following sieve"


 * "my own assessment of what people said in their various affidavits, letters and interviews" (italics added)


 * "I am very reluctant to assume that GW or someone else was aboard"


 * "the statements were mixed on the topic of GW making flights"


 * For my part, I frankly don't know what to think of the affidavits and the later interviews. In deciding what I might write in the article, I refrain entirely from making an "assessment" of what those people said. Nor am I "reluctant" to asssume, or not to assume, when writing for the article, that GW was aboard his aircraft. I do not filter the affidavits through a "sieve." I am only interested in faithfully and fairly presenting what the affiants and witnesses said, as reported in secondary sources, or as shown in primary sources.


 * Below are the two recent edits you made in the Stella Randolph Research subsection that I disagree with. At the time, I glossed over them; I think there were more pressing issues. In light of our current conversation about the affidavits and whether we can summarize or otherwise describe or present them, I see the edits as problematic. Here they are:


 * "who said they had and had not seen Whitehead fly"


 * "supporting arguments that Whitehead flew, as well as supporting arguments that he never flew"


 * I believe that each of these edits incorrectly gives the impression that the affidavits equally support both sides of the debate. Without either a "summary" of the affidavits, or relevant excerpts from them, that impression will remain.


 * An immediate remedy is to change the text in the Randolph subsection of the article to:


 * "Randolph located and interviewed people who said they witnessed Whitehead's aeronautical activities some 30 years earlier...."


 * And,


 * "These affidavits are key pieces of evidence, in addition to the Bridgeport Sunday Herald newspaper report, in the debate whether Whitehead flew".


 * However, making only those cosmetic adjustments to the text significantly shortchanges the article by still saying essentially nothing about the affidavits. In view of the critical importance of the affidavits in the controversy, I think the article should include substantive information from, or about them.


 * Here is a proposal for text to be added to the Randolph subsection:


 * "A majority of the affidavits told of seeing a 'plane,' or 'airplane,' or 'machine' 'flying' or making a 'flight.'


 * If it is impossible to "legally" summarize the affidavits in our own words (or we cannot agree on the wording), we can instead include actual excerpts.


 * Here is a list of quotations from the affidavits:


 * Five of the affidavits said Whitehead "succeeded in flying his machine propelled by motor" (one of those said "...a motor"); one said "I saw him make the flight"; one said "his plane was started in flight"; one said a plane "rose from the ground" and "traveled under its own motor power"; one said "Whitehead flew his folding winged plane"; one recalled "seeing an airplane flight". One said "many a time" Whitehead flew a plane in circles in his yard, tethered by rope to a stake in the ground. One said, "I was not present and did not witness any airplane flight on August 14, 1901."


 * I don't know if you're correct in making an "assessment" in which you are "reluctant to assume" that some of these quotations (disregarding the tether example) refer to a person piloting an airplane, or that these statements are "mixed on the topic of GW making flights". I don't think a reader unaware of the controversy who sees these excerpts would draw the conclusion that they are mixed. Personally, I do not see a mix in these quotations of equal weight for and against Whitehead flying airplanes. I see clear weight in favor of his flying airplanes. Evidently, our perceptions differ. (But don't confuse my perceptions of the quotes with what I personally believe. I don't know what the "truth" is.)


 * Of course, readers are free to look up and read the affidavits for themselves. However, I think not many would do so, and therefore, in my opinion, the article has an obligation to "be bold" and include substantive information about the affidavits within its own text.


 * Comments welcome! DonFB (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the remarks about using my own "sieve" for my own "assessment" in the spirit of "significant editorial disclosures" - to make it clear that in my mind, the affidavits do not support to any great degree the assertion that GW was aboard his flying machines when they made flights of a half-mile or 2 miles or 7 miles. I have given the affidavits the fairest reading I can give and was surprised at how thin the support appears to be in the affidavits for GW having made the 14 Aug. 1901 and 17 Jan. 1902 flights. One of the problems with doing a weighting of the affidavits is, of course, the universe of affidavits is skewed... SR and O'Dwyer sought out affidavits as a means of gathering evidence that GW did make those flights. That being so (that the affidavits were gathered to provide evidence to that effect), they fall far short, in as fair a reading as I am capable of. I really do not have ax to grind here, either, I don't see myself as some sort of "anti-GW" avenger.


 * As for any edits I've made that might be problematic, please feel free to revise any you have a problem with. I am not wedded to any I have made, and don't take these things personally.


 * In the spirit of presenting the affidavits fairly, we really have to be careful to not inject meanings into them, and one aspect of that is to not take every mention of a "flight" and see GW onboard.


 * I am not certain at all that we could compose a neutral statement about the affidavits. I suggest quoting SR, and O'Dwyer and G-S about the affidavits. If we begin to quote them, we begin to inject a bias, at least that's how I see it. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the issue may, to some degree, come down to the matter of "Undue Weight," which is a concept discussed on the Neutral Point of View policy page (WP:NPOV).


 * The GW article is not specifically about a "minority viewpoint"; it's a biographical article. However, the central focus of the article is on his disputed accomplishments, which are held to be true by a "minority". So the article seems to also exhibit characteristics of an article about a "minority viewpoint."


 * A quote from the NPOV page:


 * "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space."


 * The policy also states:


 * "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."


 * So we must calibrate the appropriate amount of "attention" the article gives to the controversy.


 * I think you are focusing on the credibility of the affidavits/witnesses and deciding that because, in your opinion, they "fall far short," Wikipedia must not use/describe/quote them. I think this is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia.


 * Quoting again from NPOV:


 * "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." Of necessity, that means sometimes (often, actually) including information with which editor(s) themselves disagree. However, the policy also cautions, "inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." So that speaks to your idea, "If we begin to quote them, we start to inject a bias."


 * My view is that the affidavits are so central to the controversy, that it is not "inappropriate" to offer actual excerpts (or possibly, descriptions) of them. In short, I think it is very incorrect to try to completely exclude them. They are not taboo. In fact, almost nothing that is well-sourced is taboo in Wikipedia articles. (Important exceptions exist for Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP.)


 * You commented:
 * "in my mind, the affidavits do not support to any great degree the assertion that GW was aboard his flying machines"


 * The point I would make in response is that the article, as now written, does not make such an assertion, and I would certainly not support revised text which does so. If you are concerned that readers will infer such a thing from an affidavit quote (or possibly a "description"), I think we can work collaboratively to present the quote or description so we do not mislead readers. I am sure such collaboration is not beyond our powers. It is not proper, however, to advocate, in effect, for a preemptive ban on quoted excerpts from the affidavits, because you believe that in doing so, "we start to inject a bias."


 * In some articles on controversial subjects, particular material is sometimes prohibited because it comes from highly questionable, or even fraudulent or "fringe" (WP:FRNG) sources. I don't think the affidavits meet any of those tests, and no matter what you think of them, they are as essential to the subject we're writing about as the subject itself. They can hardly be banned.


 * I am reminded of Talk page conversations I've had in the past with editors of certain nationalities who demanded I not quote from the Smithsonian, because they didn't like it as a source.


 * Far more controversial descriptions and quotes can be found every day, presented responsibly, in the pages of Wikipedia, from Creationism to Bill Clinton to Socialism


 * I am, of course, very willing to include relevant quotes from G-S, Stella, and O'Dwyer. But I can hardly agree to a defacto ban of the affidavits. DonFB (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can easily agree with all you've said above. I should have phrased my concern more as a note of caution than as seeking some preemptive ban on affidavits, which I wouldn't feel totally comfortable with, either. Having been immersed in the letters, interviews, statements, and affidavits for the past few days, I suppose I am reacting to the lack of clarity in many of them about what is actually being communicated (along the lines of prophecy, wherein people can read whatever they wish into what is said), and the frustration I feel about how, for the most part, inadequate the questioning must have been - of course that has little to do with our objectives here.


 * So, let's plunge in and try to wrap some language around this. I'll try to stay hopeful that something swell will result which will serve the policies of Wikipedia and our readers. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll kick things off with a reprise of my proposal earlier, on which you haven't yet commented:


 * "A majority of the affidavits told of seeing a 'plane,' or 'airplane,' or 'machine' 'flying' or making a 'flight.


 * A portion or phrase from the Stella quotation that you offered earlier might be used in conjunction with this proposal to qualify it. Perhaps something like:


 * "Randolph, who [solicited and collected the affidavits?] / [interviewed the witnesses?], characterized the events described in the affidavits as "brief flights or hops".


 * The description is pretty bare-bones, but could be supplemented with other details, such as how many affidavits used the phrase "propelled by motor".


 * This description/summary does not, and is not intended to meet strict conditions that would denote "they saw Whitehead piloting his powered airplane." In short, the description is not trying to "prove" anything, but only to say that most of the people said they saw an aircraft of some kind in flight.


 * I certainly agree with your frustration about how inadequate the questioning of the affiants evidently was (if there was any at all). DonFB (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Ok, I can certainly live with that, with one change. By saying "majority" it carries the meaning that this was some sort of random sample and the majority saw flights - i.e., it advocates. It is to be expected that a majority of the affidavits SR collected would have mentioned seeing a plane or some such thing as that is what SR was after - it is a self-selecting pool of responses. I want to say the 1930's affidavits should, perhaps, be seen as different and more trustworthy than those gathered by O'Dwyer and his group.

Other than that, let's move ahead with this and see what Binksternet thinks... and any other editor who might be lurking. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Article Text re: Affidavits
I thought it might be good to start a new discussion section as the above was getting to be quite long. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be invaluable if there's a source that describes Randolph's motivation in getting the affidavits. Or maybe she admits/hints at it herself? Such a statement would deserve prominent placement in her subsection. But, umm, your objection to "majority" goes right back to our bone of contention. On the other hand, are you saying you are amenable to dropping "majority" and simply starting the description:


 * "The affidavits told of seeing....."


 * Which sounds like every one of them said so (not entirely accurate, because of Dickie of course). Not sure how you want to modify the wording. DonFB (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... for the moment, let's discuss the 15 (from 13 people) which SR used in her 1937 book: 3 of the 13 people did not see flights. Ritchey saw an engine test of a plane with was "anchored to the ground"; Dickie did not see a flight; Devine did not see a flight; the others saw flights with or without GW aboard and with power and without.


 * I cannot find in any of the three books where SR describes her motivation for gathering the affidavits.


 * How does the following strike you as suggested text...
 * In the mid-1930's, writer Stella Randolph sought out people who had known Whitehead and who had seen his machines and engines, and she obtained 15 affidavits from 13 people, 3 of whom said they did not see flights while the other 10 said they saw flights of various types. Randolph characterized the statements and affidavits she obtained: "Other statements, oral and written have come to the writer to much the same effect as the affidavits quoted. These brief flights or hops, indicate that the longer flights made by Whitehead must have been the result of considerable work and experimentation. That the plane did not rise far from the ground may be readily understood. The engines quite apparently were of insufficient power for the weight."
 * Feel free to revise. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revise. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revise. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can definitely live with that. I think it can replace the 2nd para in her subsection, while the 1st para remains unchanged. First sentence can become two, and one or two very few minor changes to number format. ---> "....had seen his machines and engines. She obtained 15 affidavits....." DonFB (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I found one more affidavit, so the count became 4 who did not see and 10 who did, of a total of 16 affidavits from 14 people. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Next, you'll be telling me you found a photograph of GW flying over the Conn. state capitol with his hands in the air.....(kidding).... Who did you find, where was it shown? DonFB (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With PhotoShop anything's possible... John Brown, affidavit dated 29 Mar. 1937, Before The Wrights Flew, p.129/full affidavit in Stella Randolph Collection Univ. of Texas Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Affidavits are not preferred as references as they are primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

True but insinuating, unsourced and OR statements
If I added this sentence to the article about Albert Einstein: "Einstein never publicly denied being a pedophile." Then it would, of course be removed, but for what reason? Note that the sentence is not false, it is true. Einstein was never even accused of being a pedophile so he had no reason to deny it.

But it is an insinuation, it is unsourced, and original research (OR) and is probably breaking a bunch of other wikipedia rules too.

With this reasoning, let's look at some sentences in this article:

"Harworth makes no mention of the Wrights visiting in his 1934 affidavit and neither of the two Randolph books nor History By Contract (O'Dwyer/Randolph) mentions Harworth regarding the Wrights."

This is true, but it is an insinuation, it is unsourced, and original research (OR), so I deleted it.

Kosch said, without stating a source, "If you look at the reputation of the editor of the Bridgeport Herald in those days, you find that he was a reputable man. He wouldn't make this stuff up."

The part: "without stating a source" was of the same type, so I deleted it 3 weeks ago, and nobody has restored it, that is good.

I expect to find more statements of this type, which are true, but it is an insinuation, it is unsourced, and original research (OR), and I will delete all such statements with the same justification. Roger491127 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference being that "Harworth" asserted that the Wrights visited GW, but did not say so in his affidavit. I don't believe, to follow along your odd argument, that anyone ever accused Einstein of being a pedophile, hence the inferential denial is meaningless. What is interesting is your desire, Roger, to defend "Harworth" even in the current case where something is clearly amiss.


 * As for Andy K.'s comment, he assumes that Richard Howell wrote the 18 Aug 1901 Sunday Herald article, and as we've discussed at length, that is an unfounded assumption.
 * Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin Devane
In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation_in_Pittsburgh Martin Devane is described as a fireman, and that was the case in this article too, before it was changed in accordance with his own affidavit. I wonder where this idea about him being a fireman originated. The story about how he was called to the scene strongly suggests that he was a fireman, so maybe he was both a fireman and helped Whitehead sometimes. Why would he be called to a place of a fire if he was not a fireman? Was there another source, beside his own affidavit, which we have lost track of, or maybe has disappeared from the web?Roger491127 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this interesting text in the middle of http://gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/1935_-_did_whitehead_preced.html

"in the Oakland suburb of Pittsburgh in the Spring of 1899, when much cruder, steam-driven model had carried him and his assistant a distance of almost a mile.

Firemen from the nearby No. 24 Engine Company had lent their assistance that time to start the machine, while the assistant fed charcoal to the flame which heated water in the ordinary kitchen boiler which they were using. The firebox had a sheet of asbestos at its base, then a sheet of iron over that, while the walls were made of clay. The engine itself was a two-cylinder one with a 4-inch bore and 10-inch stroke.

No one expected the machine to go far on that eventful day. A distance of a few rods would have been sufficiently convincing in those days. But as they went onward and upward, steered by Gustave Whitehead at the controls in the front, they exceeded the distance originally planned and found themselves headed for a three-story brick house. Afraid to attempt to swerve, there was but one hope, namely that they might clear the top of the house. But they failed. Down fell the machine, all but demolished, while the agonized fireman in the back writhed with the pain of a scalded leg. The glasses for indicating water-level in the boilers had broken, permitting steam to envelop the man."

No source is given but it explains why a fireman arrived very soon after the accident. "Firemen from the nearby No. 24 Engine Company had lent their assistance that time to start the machine..." It sounds like Whitehead had friends among the firemen in No. 24 Engine Company. Roger491127 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: the Devine (NOT "Devane") affidavit has been mangled and misconstrued to bolster the claim of the 1899 supposed "flight" - Martin Devine was 16 in 1899 and not a firefighter and by his own statement, he was someone who pushed GW's craft along the ground on wheels. He was not a firefighter who responded to the event (as he is often said to have been), whatever that event might have been. Also, FYI, the quotation you've cited directly above is full of made-up details, not that something being faked or made-up has prevented it from being cited. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet rules

 * Not to worry. I removed the whole fireman section from that article, as it was a case of all positive argument and no negative rebuttal. Affidavits were used as references; they are primary sources, not preferred secondary ones. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really mean that every sentence or part of a sentence with positive statements in wikipedia which is not immediately followed by a negative rebuttal must be removed? Roger491127 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If primary sources cannot be used we must delete all material based on affidavits and the article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald, which also is a primary source. Are you really serious or are you joking? If we use your rules we would have to delete around 98% of the whole wikipedia, and we could only use academic books which refer to other books as sources. I guess that is what you want because the only source you have put forward is that book by some academic person, Gibbs-Smith I think was his name. Roger491127 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Really, Roger, I encourage you to study the GW material more in depth, it will simplify all this and make your life less stressful, also. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, funny heading. ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, per WP:NPOV where it says "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", no seriously challenged claim can be stated as fact, anywhere on Wikipedia. Another relevant section (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) says "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." We say that this or that author thinks Whitehead flew; we don't say he flew. Because of NPOV's direction that we should "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", we always include rebuttals to Whitehead's notional flight from highly respected aviation historians such as Gibbs-Smith. Whitehead cannot be said to have flown without also saying experts exist who think he did not fly. This is a foundational practice at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bridgeport newspaper is a secondary source, and would normally be useful as a reference by itself. Its veracity has been variously championed and questioned by subsequent observers which means we will not take the newspaper at face value any more. In a case like this, we go back to NPOV and we "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" and we properly attribute statements about the newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Early Life and Career
Paragraphs #1, 4 and 5 are unsourced, and unless they can be sourced, should be deleted. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of deleting these paragraphs I think we should first try to find sources which support or disagrees with these paragraphs, so we see what we can keep, what should be changed and what has to be deleted. One source is here http://gustavewhitehead.org/the_biography.html


 * Give me some time and I will dig up some more sources. Then we can compare the sources and discuss what to keep, change or delete. Roger491127 (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no due date for the article, so I agree with your measured approach, but at the same time there's no need to keep doubtful information until it can be confirmed. It's just as easy to comment out the text or to store it elsewhere. We could bring it here to the talk page to discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, let's remove them and copy them here to discuss. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found these sources: http://earlyaviators.com/ewhitehe.htm http://www.aerofiles.com/bio_w.html#whitehead http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm http://bridgeport.ct.schoolwebpages.com/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=21662 http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/2 http://www.weisskopf.de/pageID_9959470.html http://gustavewhitehead.org/the_biography.html

I will translate the sources in German to English. Roger491127 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.weisskopf.de/pageID_9959470.html

Born 1. Januar 1874 as the second child of Babette und Karl Weißkopf (Weisskopf)

1888 shanghayed to work on a ship, 1889 back to Germany and then he emigrated to Brazil with a family

After working on ships for several years he arrived to USA 1894 and stayed there for the rest of his life

1897 tried to build and use sailplanes, gliders. Hired by Millet to build and fly gliders for Boston Aeronautical Society, flew short flights. Albert B. C. Horn, an Assistent, wrote: "A lightweighter would have flown longer than Weißkopf. (Weisskopf was a big and heavy man, my own addition) 1897 also hired by Horsman in New York to build kites.

Married Luisa Tuba in Buffalo 24. November 1897, Lived in Baltimore for the following 2 years. from newspaper articles we can see that he tried gliders and built and tested motors. In 1899 he found work in coalmine in Pittsburgh. Here he met Louis Darvarich who helped him with his aviation experiments.

The article then quotes Darvarich's affidavit from 1934, Martin Devane is called a firefighter. 1900 to Bridgeport. He built a workshop. Mr. Miller supported him with $ 300.00

http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm does not need translation as it is in both German and English. Roger491127 (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph: "Whitehead was born in Leutershausen, Bavaria, the second child of Karl Weisskopf and his wife Babetta. As a boy, he showed an interest in flight, experimenting with kites and earning the nickname "the flyer". He and a friend caught and tethered birds in an attempt to learn how they flew, an activity which police soon stopped. His parents died in 1886 and 1887, when he was a boy. He then trained as a mechanic and traveled to Hamburg, where in 1888 he was forced to join the crew of a sailing ship. A year later, he returned to Germany, then journeyed with a family to Brazil. He went to sea again for several years, learning more about wind, weather and bird flight." is supported by several sources, http://www.weisskopf.de/zeittafel.htm http://www.weisskopf.de/pageID_9959470.html and http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehead-and-the-first-flight-controversy.htm/2 Roger491127 (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Paragraphs 4 and 5 are also supported by at least one of the same sources. The points which are in question are 1: that he returned to Germany and spent time with Lilienthal (seems very unlikely). 2: His arrival in USA is given as 1894 in most sources but the Census gives the year 1893. Roger491127 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the section Early life, deleted the sentence about Lilienthal because most sources makes that impossible, added conflict between Census and biographies. Roger491127 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to do some other things now, but maybe later I can put proper references to paragraphs 1, 3 and 4. Unless you two can do some useful work too, you have the sources above, you can just insert refs to these unreferenced paragraphs. Roger491127 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Roger491127 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Silk wings
I wonder if it is really necessary to keep this formulation:

"Reports vary as to the covering used on the wings - silk (ex: Gustave Whitehead and William J. O'Dwyer, Stella Randolf and Harvey Phillips), muslin (ex: Sunday Herald article, 18 August 1901)."

Everybody except for Dick Howell say that the wings were made out of silk. Beside Gustave Whitehead and William J. O'Dwyer, Stella Randolf and Harvey Phillips we also have affidavits about several women and one man who were engaged in sewing the silk for the wings. Remember that Dick Howell called the propellers "wings", obviously he did not know the correct nomenclature for every detail about the number 21.

I suggest that we simply ignore the only one who said muslin and rely on the many, more reliable sources, who said silk, so we can say that the wings were made out of silk and make the article easier to read. We remove an unnecessary complication, for good reasons and supported by 4-5 sources. Roger491127 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Following the rule "be bold" I made a change well motivated in talk page, silk wings. Done Roger491127 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * GW's brother, John, who saw the wings in person, told Randolph they were covered with muslin, which was the basis for the former statement in the article, so I am altering your change, Roger. Also, Roger, it is only "widely assumed" that Richard Howell wrote the 18 August 1901 article, so to state that he did is not correct. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The end of the story
I added two quotes from Popular Aviation, January 1935 to the 1902 section which explain why Whitehead never flew again. It gives the reader a more natural ending of his career as airplane builder and explains how poverty, bad fortune, and bad business decisions, put an end to Whitehead's most successful years. Maybe we could add something about Whitehead getting older, accidents which harmed his health, his growing interest in helicopters instead of airplanes, the problem with financial backers who forced him into projects leading nowhere and conflicts with financial backers, but for now I have at least given the reader an idea of why his successful years ended in 1902. Before I added these quotes the reader was left with a story which seemed to end inexplicably when Whitehead could really have started building and selling airplanes, without an explanation. Roger491127 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't find what you've done to be appropriate, Roger. If you wish to write an article explaining away every odd thing about the story of GW's work (such as GW leaving his supposedly successful No.22 out to the elements to be ruined), then write an article. I find much of what you contribute to be speculative, unsupported, erroneous, often unsourced, and most often advocating on behalf of GW's claims and those made on his behalf. I will rewrite this section, within the next few days. It is not acceptable as you've written it. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

About Muslin: Muslin (English pronunciation: /ˈmʌslɨn/, or less frequently: (/ˈmjuːsɨn/) is a type of loosely-woven cotton fabric, introduced to Europe from the Middle East in the 17th century. It became very popular at the end of the 18th century in France. Muslin is most typically an unbleached or white cloth, produced from carded cotton yarn. Wide muslin is sometimes called "sheeting", but not all sheeting is necessarily muslin. It is often used to make patterns for clothing, dresses or curtains, for example, but may also be used for upholstery. Muslin breathes well, and is a good choice of material for clothing meant for hot, dry climates.

Note that it is loosely-woven cotton fabric, Muslin breathes well. so it is not a suitable material for wings. That is one more reason why it is very unlikely that it was used for wings.

That he had to leave number 22 outside during the winter is well explained and well sourced, so I cannot see what problem you have with that. If he had been able to store it inside and it therefor was well preserved the following summer he would of course have used it again. That he did not do that is another indication that it was ruined from being left out in sleet and snow. Roger491127 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The ending I added from Popular Aviation, January 1935 to the 1902 section gives the reader an idea of what happened next. Without it they would feel like coming out from watching a movie which suddenly ends just when the movie starts getting really interesting. They would wonder why the movie ended there, wondering if maybe they had seen only the first part of a movie in two parts, when will the second part be shown?

But with the ending I added they will understand that he had to work to support the family, that he had a new project going but a stupid person lost the new powerful motor into the water, so the rest of the story was filled with failure and lack of resources. It gives the reader a more natural and understandable ending to his most successful years. And it is well sourced. It makes the article easier to read and understand. Roger491127 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not recommend larding the article with explanatory detail the point of which is to overwhelm the few dismissive words from disbelievers. The balance of the article should be teetering on the brink of did he fly or didn't he, not sitting solidly on the side of all the details people have embroidered the tales with. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, exactly what do you mean I have added which is "speculative, unsupported, erroneous, often unsourced, and most often advocating on behalf of GW's claims"? I gave you and Binksternet the chance to add proper references to the section Early life, I had located the sources and all you had to do was to insert proper references. But when I returned 8 hours later you had done nothing so I did it myself.

If you want to add unnecessary and confusing "odd things" which makes the article much harder to read, what is your agenda? It will not make wikipedia better but worse. So please explain for every addition exactly why you see that addition as absolutely necessary. Roger491127 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet, if you want to add refutations to the idea that he flew, please do that in a separate paragraph, named appropriately, like Why it is not likely that Whitehead ever flew, or Arguments from disbelievers, or People who do not think Whitehead ever flew, for example, and you can quote Orville Wright, Peter Jakab etc... Let the believers like Whitehead, O'Dwyer, Stella Randolph, Harvey Phillips, Dick Howell, etc tell their story, and then add a section of arguments of refutation, but much of that is already covered in the section Controversy, of course. That makes the article easier to read and the reader will see the two sides clearly. Roger491127 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is certainly room for a rebuttal section, but the point I am making is that the proponent details are too, too much, per WP:WEIGHT, where it says "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If a section called "Rebuttal" is composed of a two or three paragraphs, the rest of the article should be about six more paragraphs not counting the lead section. It would be something like three paragraphs of facts that everybody agrees with, three paragraphs of facts which are in dispute, three rebuttal paragraphs, and a lead section rewritten to match what is found in the article. Another approach is to have the most important pro-Whitehead arguments accompanied by anti-Whitehead arguments in the same paragraph or section. To follow the guideline, to make this article hew to Wikipedia's rules for undue weight, the article's pro-Whitehead details must be greatly reduced. Your job is to select which are the most compelling points and present them succinctly. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, you can remove Richard Howell from your list of "believers" - I don't believe you can point to a single instance where he, Richard Howell, ever made a single comment about GW's supposed flights. Your contributions commonly begin with the assumption GW did as he claimed as has been claimed on his behalf.


 * As for muslin, Wilbur and Orville Wright used muslin covering for their wings and and other flying surfaces and muslin did not seem to be a problem for them.


 * And, what was the issue with you adding the references yourself, why would you wait for one of us to do it? I fail to understand why you waiting 8 hours for one of us to add the references has any relevance to any of this.


 * Roger, you say let O'Dwyer, Randolph and Phillips tell their own story... well, they have, and all of their material is reasonably easy for Wikipedia readers to access. Therefore, I don't see why it's necessary to quote large parts of their works here in this article. In this Wikipedia article on GW, I would rather make it clear what is available, where that material might be easily located, a very brief synopsis of the claims made by GW and by others on his behalf, and a summary of the "rebuttals" to those various claims.


 * For instance, I see no purpose to be served nor reason to repeat GW's birthdate, place of birth and date of death, etc., in both the narrative portion and the sidebar under his photo.


 * To be consumed by this struggle whether to present GW's claims as though they are fact is unnecessarily time consuming and tedious, and it isn't Wikipedia's role to do so. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, quoted "And, what was the issue with you adding the references yourself, why would you wait for one of us to do it? I fail to understand why you waiting 8 hours for one of us to add the references has any relevance to any of this."

You were the one who complained about the lack of references for these paragraphs. I worked for 4 hours to locate the sources for these paragraphs. Then I was occupied for 8 hours with other things, so I suggested that you or Binksternet could insert the references, which was easy as I had collected the links to the sources. But you were obviously not so interested in referencing these paragraphs anymore because when I returned 8 hours later you had done nothing about it. So I did it myself. I wasn't "waiting" for 8 hours, I have other things I have to take care of besides editing wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And about Dick Howell. I don't like the word believer, it has a religious aroma about it. The word supporter is better, and I don't think you can remove Dick Howell from the group of supporters. After all he wrote a newspaper article about the event, he wrote that it had happened and how it had happened.

And, by the way, this is a suitable moment to talk about my own view. I came here after viewing a program on the Discovery channel about Gustave Whitehead. As I am a scientist I was neutral to the issue, I just wanted to know more about it. After 1-2 years of reading all available documentation I have come to the same conclusion as many others, It looks very likely that Gustave Whitehead was the first man who built and flew a motorized and well controllable airplane for substantial stretches, like half a mile or more, and had enough witnesses to make it very difficult to deny his achievements. But, as the scientist I am I am still open to facts which could change my mind, although in this case I cannot understand how that could happen. A big conspiracy including a lot of people who did not say anything about it until they were found and interviewed about it 35 years and some 65 years later sounds very unlikely. Roger491127 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, Roger, I do not believe you can produce a single instance where Richard Howell claimed or stated or otherwise said that he was the person who wrote the 18 August 1901 article, and that is why we used the 'phrase assumed by many.' We've been over this point many times... further, it was you who used the word "believer" in reference to GW's supporters, I was using the term you offered. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Publication date
Binksternet, you obviously thought it was very important to point out that the publication happened four days after the event August 14 1901. I moved that fact down to the controversy section where it belongs. Actually, I see nothing wrong with including all the arguments used by Orville and others into the controversy section. Most, if not all, of these arguments are very easy to refute, and they really have a rightful place in the controversy section. Roger491127 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody demanded references for the use of four day delay in publication as a way to discredit Whitehead and the refutation. I searched for it and ironically I found a quote in this discussion page, in the archives.

"The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright (in two volumes, New York, 1953) which were prepared by the Aeronautics Division of the Library of Congress. Orville Wright himself also dealt with the Whitehead claims in a brief article in the magazine U.S. Air Services (August 1945), which reads as follows:" 'The myth of Gustave Whitehead having made a power flight in 1901 was founded upon the story which appeared in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901. Although this mythical flight was alleged to have taken place on August 14th, and to have been witnessed by a Herald reporter, the news was withheld four days and appeared as a feature story in a Sunday edition of that paper! Would the editor of the Herald have held back for four days a story of such great human and historical interest, if he believed it to be true? " Roger491127 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to insert reference but found that DonFB already had done it. Thanks. Roger491127 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Howell could have submitted his story to another local paper, a daily one such as the Bridgeport Evening Farmer or the Bridgeport Evening Post, to ensure that the story scooped all other possible ones. If Whitehead had truly flown on August 14, eyewitnesses might have reported it, and Whitehead might have as well. Howell would have been worried about being second or third to report it.
 * Wright was dismissive of the Herald article in more ways than its Sunday news date. He noted witches on brooms used as an illustrated border around the article about flying, which he thought was a broad hint from the publisher saying the article was a joke. He wrote, "The strangest part of all is that anyone should think that Howell's story was intended to be taken as fact. It was printed with a large heading entitled 'Flying', illustrated with witches riding astraddle their brooms."
 * James Dickie, a supposed eyewitness that day, said in 1937 that the entire Herald story was "imaginary". Wright pointed to this as a gaping hole in the evidence. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Howell worked for the Bridgeport Herald, it would have been illoyal of him to give the story to another newspaper. He could have lost his job. Imagine a journalist who works for New York Times. He finds a great scoop and gives the story to the Washington Post. He would be fired immediately. Also, communications then were not like today. He could be fairly sure that no other journalist knew about it. And anyhow, he was the only journalist who was present so he was the only journalist who could deliver an eyewitness report.

If you knew how newspapers work you would realize that a lot can happen to an article on the way from the journalist to the printed page. There are editors and the people who set the page and it is likely that the witches on brooms and other decorations or stuff around Howell's article were added by somebody other than Dick Howell who was a serious journalist.

You should also know what attitude Dickie had towards Whitehead, it is very obvious in the phone interview O'Dwyer made with him that Dickie was very angry at Whitehead and would "never credit him with anything". But he didn't have the stomach to lie to O'Dwyer and say straight out that he was not present or didn't know Suellie. Instead he said: I don't want to talk about it. Roger491127 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @Binksternet: Orville's refutation has its weaknesses. He claimed that a Whitehead flight would be big news. He knew, of course, that there were some very inaccurate second-hand newspaper reports about the Kitty Hawk flights. But he also knew that after a major and historic accomplishment—Wilbur flying a circle in September 1904 near Dayton—nothing was said in the newspapers, and neither brother made any effort to publicize it. The point is that the brothers' historic achievements received little serious newspaper coverage for years, so it was somewhat disingenuous for Orville to make a point about the Bridgeport Herald's supposed delayed publication.


 * Also, eyewitnesses (neighboring farmers, who were not sworn to secrecy) saw the Wrights flying at Huffman Prairie (Dayton) many times in 1904 and 1905, sometimes for distances approximating what was reported for Whitehead. They did not rush out and tell the newspapers. An odd thing about these early flying experiments is that ordinary people did not understand their signficance (Amos Root of Ohio was an exception, but he was not ordinary). Only in autumn 1905, when the brothers began flying for 10, 15, 20 minutes, and over a half hour, did spectators begin contacting local newspapers. I would have to agree that Howell (or whoever) would be very unlikely to submit his story to a competing newspaper. BTW, in what source do you have the text of Orville's article about Whitehead? DonFB (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I typed the Wright bit out plain on the talk page some time ago. It's now found in archive 6, at Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6. It's Gibbs-Smith quoting Wright. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, I read your speculations, about Howell, and Dickie and others, and your guesses or surmises or speculations have no place in the article - consider your speculations to be "OR"... As for me, I don't take Orville Wright's Aug. 1945 "US Air Services" short piece to be the end-all and be-all of GW refutations. Also, Roger, you'd do well to not accept everything O'Dwyer wrote or said as true - there are some very serious flaws, errors, and mis-statements, but maybe this article is not the place to present them. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, this is the discussion page, not the article. Here I can express my views and explain what I base them on, hoping that one or two of you will be influenced by reason and rationality, and the sources that are available to us. The phone conversation between O'Dwyer and Dickie is available for anybody to read, and it should tell anybody a lot about what drives Dickie to the kind of expressions he has said over the years, for example. Note that the list of discrediting arguments Orville Wright put together in his article "The mythical Whitehead flights" in the magazine U.S. Air Services (August 1945) was used by the Smithsonian and later used by Binksternet's hero Gibbs-Smith. That is how academic writers write their books, they use other books and publications and don't bother to go back to the primary sources and do real research and apply reason and rational thinking. When I was searching for a reference for Orville arguments I found a book about the Wright brothers written by Peter Jakab, that shows which first fliers he admires and where his loyalty lies. (If it wasn't already pretty clear from his choice of arguments to discredit Whitehead.) He was the one who invented the argument that it was strange that Whitehead did not mention to his wife that he had managed to fly. But we know from the 1940 interview that Whitehead actually excitedly told his wife about it in the evening of August 14 1901, and shouldn't Jakab have known about this interview? And, Carroll, I still think you idea to leave the final decision on whether Whitehead flew or not to his wife is a very strange idea, considering that she had no opportunity or wish to watch any of his flights. Roger491127 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite true that editors can state their opinions or conclusions here on the Talk page. But as recently as Nov. 28, you stated your own conclusion (as you have many times previously) in the article itself, when you wrote: "John Whitehead, the brother, arrived from California in April, 1902, so it was very likely that it was number 22 he saw." (Italics added). As long as you make edits to this article, it will be necessary for other editors, who are rational and reasonable, to scrutinize your work and remove such improper editorial conclusions and violations of the Original Research rule. DonFB (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Carroll, I quote from above "As I wrote above, Roger, I do not believe you can produce a single instance where Richard Howell claimed or stated or otherwise said that he was the person who wrote the 18 August 1901 article". O'Dwyer read practically all Richard Howell's articles and studied his drawings. Don't you think he would have noticed a difference in writing style and drawing style in the article about Whitehead if someone else than Howell had written that article? And why would Howell have claimed or stated that he was the author of that article? It was his column and nobody questioned that he was the author so he had no reason to state that he was the author. I think that to you who live in USA the old issues of Bridgeport Sunday Herald are available in one form or another, maybe through your public library system, so you can study Howell's articles yourself and compare the style of his articles before and after the article of August 18 1901. By the way, I have never heard you claim or state that you are actually the author of all the writings in this discussion page you have written. Why haven't you claimed or stated or otherwise said that you are the author of all these writings? Roger491127 (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Until it can be shown that Richard Howell, himself, laid claim to the 18 August 1901 article, saying he did so is nothing less than speculation raised to the level of an assumption. As for your silliness about me claiming my own writing, I fail to see what you mean.


 * About Maj. O'Dwyer... as I have previously cautioned, Maj. O'Dwyer cannot be fully relied on. That does not prevent him from being cited and his works being sources, but he was not, in many cases, an honest person when he presented "facts" - he all too often manipulated what was said to him, and often stated he did things which he did not do, and I do have very good reason to be saying this. But, also, that is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia article, and would involve bringing in my own OR, which I try my best to not do. I do feel it is proper to warn about his multiple lapses, however.


 * As DonFB pointed out, all-too-often, Roger, your edits have included speculation and assumption and advocacy.


 * I've already said I don't believe that Orville Wright's "U.S. Air Services" article is the final word on GW, far from it. If you read my published article on GW, which I gave the link to a while ago, you might recall I found Orville Wright's Whitehead article lacking.


 * By the way, Roger, the source of the "Mrs. Whitehead" argument is my web site, posted 12 years ago. It has been used by a number of people subsequently, and without credit, but that is where it appeared first. If you know of its use prior to 1998, please let me know, and I will stand corrected.


 * You keep mentioning the interview with Mrs. Whitehead, but have you seen that interview ? Have you read those interviews (there were at least two) ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Orville's arguments
I think Binksternet has revealed Orville's arguments in his quotes in the archived parts of this discussion page.

From the Gibbs-Smith book:
 * Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6

The main argument seems to be that Whitehead could not construct and build motors. As we know this argument is invalid. Whitehead was actually one of the best motor constructers in USA in 1901 and he built and sold many motors, and got orders for a lot more motors than he had time to build. The only motor he could not get to work was the one constructed by Dvorak, because the construction was faulty. Dvorak got very angry at Whitehead when he told him that Dvorak's construction was faulty. The other arguments have already been refuted. Roger491127 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here we also find the source of Binksternet's argument that Whitehead was incapable of solving the complex problems involved. Quote: "but incapable of solving the complex problems involved, especially that of a suitable engine." And Beach and his father did not finance Whitehead's projects, they financed Stanley Beach's projects which Whitehead was paid to work on, but finally he had to tell Stanley Beach that his airplane was constructed in a faulty way and Beach got mad at him. That was a recurrent theme in Whitehead's life, he was so poor that he was forced to work on other people's projects,which were hopeless constructions, and he got very little time and resources to work on his own projects. Around 1903 he got some money to help him construct a powerful motor, but the man who contributed with some money insisted on trying out the new motor in a boat, and drove recklessly, he accelerated so fast with the powerful motor that the boat tipped over, so the motor was lost in the water. That was a year or so of intensive construction and building work, destroyed in seconds by a rich but reckless person. That event was the main reason why Whitehead did not follow up his earlier successes with a bigger airplane. When the very powerful motor he had constructed and built for the bigger airplane was lost he must have been depressed and lost a lot of the optimism and energy to continue, his children became older and he had to work more to support the family and that was basically the beginning of the end of his career as airplane builder. Roger491127 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

From: http://gustavewhitehead.org/news_journalism/1935_-_did_whitehead_preced.html

"To make sure of plenty of power to spare, they (Gustave and John Whitehead) designed a 200 horsepower, eight-cylinder, four-cycle, V-shaped motor. They were encouraged now, for a new backer from New York had sought them out and, assured of funds, they felt success was within their reach. But the new backer proved their undoing, for he insisted upon testing the new motor in a boat on the Sound, and in his eagerness he advanced the spark too rapidly, the boat capsized and lost the motor. Again, Gustave Whitehead started construction, but now 1903 had more than half run its course" Roger491127 (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've offered my comments in a post at the end of the previous section. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Parts of her interviews have been quoted in this article and its talk page. And it is obvious that Mrs. Whitehead was not interested in Whitehead's aviation experiments, she hated his occupation with aviation experiments, and she was a very occupied with other things, beside taking care of the home and the children, the garden, the chickens, selling eggs, she also had to work outside the home. There is no documentation which suggests that she was present at any of his flights. So it is extremely unlikely that she saw any of his flights. So why should she have the last word on the issue of if he flew or not?

Carroll: "Until it can be shown that Richard Howell, himself, laid claim to the 18 August 1901 article, saying he did so is nothing less than speculation raised to the level of an assumption. As for your silliness about me claiming my own writing, I fail to see what you mean."

If you think it is "silliness" to demand that you claim or otherwise state that your own writing were really written by you, why shouldn't the same reasoning be valid for Richard Howard? Nobody, for a hundred years, questioned that Richard Howard was the author of that article, until you, for some reason, decided to question it. Because nobody questioned that Richard Howard was the author of that article he had no reason to state that he was the author. He continued to work for the Sunday Herald and later became its chief editor, don't you think he would have pointed out that somebody else had written the article attributed to him, and made a drawing, very similar to the drawings he used to illustrate his articles with, and placed it in his column, if he was not the author? Roger491127 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving opposition to controversy section
I suggest we move the critics like Orville and Gibbs-Smith from the opening paragraph to the Controversy section. We already have the word "reportedly" in the opening paragraph, suggesting that it might not be true. That is enough for an opening paragraph. More detailed descriptions of detractors and their arguments can be dealt with in the controversy section. Roger491127 (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this suggestion, especially in light of User:Roger491127's recent additions to the intro to counter the intro's one-sided debunking of GW, resulting in an argumentative tone. DonFB (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are more competent, and more neutral than us three other editors, so I suggest that you do it, DonFB. Roger491127 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the opening paragraph is inappropriately filled with "point and counterpoint" and reads poorly. Not only should we move the "critics" to another section, but the "advocates," as well. This article can be made much less weighty by offering a brief bio, briefly outlining the claims, the refutations and the actual work of GW, and focusing much more on what GW claimed himself in his own words, and far less on what Randolph and O'Dwyer said about him. We can point our readers to the books and articles without having to use extensive quotes from them. Then, if they have an interest in this, they can see where to pursue their interest. I believe we could cut the article down by at least half and make it much more readable and cleaner in tone.


 * Once we start presenting a "case" we fall into a trap of having to provide a counterbalance, and that can be avoided by simply pointing readers to resources.


 * Roger, your point regarding my writing is "silliness" since all of my contributions here are signed - the earlier ones with my IP. I always sign my writings. The Richard Howell assumption is simply that, an assumption, which we properly, I believe, state in this manner "The writer of the Whitehead article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald of August 18, 1901 is widely believed to have been sports editor Richard Howell, but no byline appeared on the article. In 1937 Stella Randolph stated in her first book that the author of the article was Richard Howell.[32]" To affirmatively state that Howell wrote that article is an unsupported assertion. As for O'Dwyer's comments regarding Howell, his drawings and his writings, I do not credit those comments at all, although others do, I know.


 * May I remind you that you were the person who introduced the word "silliness" to this discussion page. About your identity, I hope you know how frequent it is that people fake their IP-numbers and signatures, so such things are no guarantee that your writings here really comes from the person who set up the web site about Whitehead and wrote that the last word on the issue of if he really flew or not should be left to his wife. I just want you to realize that you should apply the same standards to your own writings as you do to Howells writings and drawings. By the way, you still haven't answered the question above, about why you think his wife should have the last word on this issue. Roger491127 (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Adopting Roger's "be bold" approach, I made a significant edit of the opening paragraph. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the idea that Carroll should rewrite the opening paragraph. And as he did it he did not remove the Orville and GS from it, so I changed it a little for now, but I still think DonFB should rewrite it. Since Carroll has clearly expressed his view that Whitehead never flew. And the detractors, Orville, Smithsonian, Jakab, GS, and Carroll, should be handled in the controversy section. Roger491127 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be happier with a formulation like "GW reportedly made a number of flights in 1901 and 1902, etc.." without mentioning either detractors or supporters or the word "claimed" as it suggests that he was the only one who said that he had flown. Like it was after I had removed the Orville and GS sentences from it. That would be more neutral, and the word reportedly would insure that we neither support nor deny it. Roger491127 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier for the reader to understand how the story unfolded if we write it in chronological order. The first the world heard about Whitehead's flights August 14 1901 was through the article in the Sunday Herald. Then Whitehead himself wrote a letter to a magazine which published it, January 1902.

Then Crane and Stella Randolph in 1935-36. Then Whitehead's son was interviewed and an article in Readers Digest. Then in 1945 Orville writes about it. Then the Smithsonian repeats Orville's arguments. Then Gibbs-Smith repeats the arguments in his book, but stupidly decides to attack Whitehead as incapable of constructing and building motors, which is a point most witnesses disagree with Gibbs-Smith on, a lot of people witness about Whitehead's ability to construct and build very good motors. Then O'Dwyer finds photos in an attic, etc... Roger491127 (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, it is not acceptable to have an opening paragraph which does not include mention that the claims made by GW are disputed, for balance.


 * I am here because you sent me a flaming e-mail using the link on my web site, so how could I be someone impersonating Carroll F. Gray ? Enough of this, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The removal of opposition voices from the lead section is a violation of WP:LEAD where we are directed to "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The sort of wording ("increased interest and debates about Gustave Whitehead") which replaced Gibbs-Smith's pointed dismissal is ridiculously wimpy; it lamely suggests that the interest in Whitehead has surpassed the opposition to his claims. No! The opposition is the mainstream viewpoint. The lead section should state this fact quite clearly for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Planned edits
I'm going to do some modification to the intro. I also just noticed that an overlong passage from the poorly-translated article that was published by FAI has been re-inserted in the Reproductions section of this article. Due to the lack of editing, it's nearly impossible to read and is excessively long. I am going to cut it down as drastically as I did another overlong quoted passage about the fate of Number 22. I plan to make these edits in a day or so. DonFB (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In advance of my edits to the quoted translation, I offer some excerpts from the Wikipedia essay about using quoted material. These guidelines serve as both rationale for my upcoming edits and as useful information for any editor who may be inclined to dump unwieldy, unedited quoted passages into this article:

Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article. -- Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimised in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. -- Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose.

A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. DonFB (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I balanced the advocacy in the intro for GW's flight claims - the parenthetical comment "(supported by an eyewitness journalist and many other witnesses)" - by mentioning they have been rejected by numerous professional aviation historians. Carroll F. Gray (talk)

After having been away for 7 hours I looked at the first paragraph and saw only minor changes, still too much argumentation for and against for a opening paragraph. So I tried to write a balanced and fairly neutral opening paragraph. I will probably soon see what you think about it. I think that statements for and against should come further down in the article. An opening statement should only inform the reader about the main subject. The words "reportedly" and "debates" are enough to inform the reader about the fact that there are conflicting views on his flights, or not-flights. Roger491127 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger I removed your mention of O'Dwyer finding photographs from the opening paragraph, as it advocated for GW's claims. Your edit was also erroneous, as you stated the photographs were from "1901" whereas O'Dwyer states the photographs he found in the attic were from "January 1910." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to write: Note that I removed my own expression (supported by an eyewitness journalist and many other witnesses) which I only inserted to balance the negative argumentation, and I also removed the negative argumentation. But before I even started writing in the discussion page Carroll had been incredibly quick, both changing the opening paragraph and writing about it in this page, within the 3-4 seconds it took me to switch over to the talk page.

About the photos of nr 21, I hope you realize, Carroll, that those photos must be from 1901, the only year nr 21 existed. So no matter what anybody states the photos are from 1901. Roger491127 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both Carroll and I have made changes to the opening paragraph, it looks neutral and is free from argumentation now. I hope this is good enough for everybody. I reinserted O'Dwyer, but without mentioning the photos this time, to inform the reader about the fact that new research has been made in modern times. 1935 was not the end of the story. Roger491127 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Carroll, you still haven't answered the question above, about why you think his wife should have the last word on this issue. Roger491127 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If Binksternet gets what he wants the opening paragraph will become really flammable, full of arguments from both sides, and it would not look good. He refers to a wikipedia rule, but there are probably also rules which say that an article should be readable and fairly civilized. Even a schoolbook doesn't start with the most flammable arguments in the first paragraph. We must have some degree of consideration for the reader. Introduce the subject of an article in a readable and gentle way, so the reader feels inclined to continue to read the rest of the article. Roger491127 (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, the photographs O'Dwyer found in the attic were not of GW's No.21 and they dated from January 1910, not 1901 (see "History By Contract," pp. XLIII - XLVIII). I've changed the wording of your intro revision a bit, eliminating O'Dwyer's name - why mention him by name in the intro and not mention Randolph, Phillips, Gibbs-Smith, Peter Jakab, Philip Jarrett... etc., etc. So, rather than single out O'Dwyer for special mention, I removed his name while retaining your point, Roger, that research was renewed in the 1960's.


 * I've stated my reasons for making the comments I've made on my web site regarding Mrs. Whitehead, and see no point in endlessly repeating them in response to your continuing prodding.


 * I think this article needs significant editing and ought to be about half its current length, as I've mentioned previously. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see someone has made the O'Dwyer-removal edit in advance of me, as the intro paragraph now reads (at 19:38, 2 Dec 2010 UTC) I think it's acceptable. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, please cite the Wikipedia guideline which goes against these ones:
 * WP:NPOV: We should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If we represent the significant views in proportion, Whitehead supporters cannot be given more space than Whitehead deniers who hold the mainstream view. This article will shrink significantly.
 * WP:LEAD: The lead section should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Once we write an article that is balanced per NPOV, the lead section will need to be rewritten to reflect it.
 * As far as "flammable" goes, I am quoting one of the leaders of the mainstream viewpoint. Though we as WP editors must be neutral, our sources do not have to be. Gibbs-Smith was absolutely vitriolic and dismissive, and if we represent him any other way we are being false, violating NPOV. There is no need to be "gentle" while we are representing mainstream viewpoints neutrally, if the viewpoints themselves are not gentle. What the article (and the lead section) must accomplish is to tell the reader that most experts think Whitehead did not fly, and to tell them some of the arguments given by those who say he did fly. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, you have my wholehearted agreement. Roger, I object to your notion that we need to seduce our readers into continuing to read the article by being "gentle" in our approach. I moved and edited the GW-WW letter paragraph from "Later Career" where it was out-of-place, to the "Wright brothers" section. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the special mention of O'Dwyer has been put back into the intro section (I wonder who could have done that...) - I will remove it, as I have stated above, if we mention O'Dwyer there, why not Randolph, Phillips, Jakab, Jarrett, etc., etc. I prefer to mention these people in the body of the article and not to highlight one in the intro. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was I. I had not read the discussion here. It is not easy to read and edit in this incredibly fast pace. It is strange that sometimes nothing happens for many hours and days, and then suddenly several editors are active and very fast simultaneously.

Binksternet, if you introduce Gibbs-Smith's main reason to discredit Whitehead, that he was incapable of the complex calculations and engineering needed to build motors you will make Gibbs-Smith sound ridiculous, because so many experts witnessed about Whitehead's ability to construct and build very good motors. The Witteman brothers visited Whitehead several times and bought motors from him, and they started the first, or one of the first, airplane industries in USA, for example. Roger491127 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read Gibbs-Smith's two unpublished manuscripts regarding GW, and I can tell you that Gibbs-Smith's "main reason" for disbelieving GW was not that "... he was incapable of the complex calculations and engineering needed..." - it was because he, Gibbs-Smith found the claims ludicrous and found that "evidence" had been tampered with - altered - and that he thought Randolph and O'Dwyer lacked the ability for proper scholarship. This point should not be introduced into the article as it constitutes OR on my part, but I cite it anyway, here only, to refute Roger's characterization of Gibbs-Smith's position. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, now you have revealed Gibbs-Smith's further argumentation, and it is obviously lacking real substance and consists mainly of insinuations and simply accusing Randolph and O'Dwyer for lacking academic titles. But the main point Binksternet has put forward and which is much more concrete is Whitehead's lacking ability to construct and build motors, a point which is a big mistake, to attack Whitehead on the strongest front he has.

Carroll, quoted "I've stated my reasons for making the comments I've made on my web site regarding Mrs. Whitehead, and see no point in endlessly repeating them in response to your continuing prodding." I have searched in vain for your reasons to why Mrs. Whitehead, who had not seen any flights, should have the last word on the issue of if Whitehead flew or not. Can you please tell me where you explained this strange idea? Roger491127 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, I'm willing to risk Gibbs-Smith looking ridiculous. His assertion that Whitehead was "incapable of solving the complex problems involved" includes problems of practical flight control. Gibbs-Smith's opinion about Whitehead's inability to fabricate an appropriate aircraft engine echoes Dvorak's words quoted by Wright: "Whitehead did not possess sufficient mechanical skill and equipment to build a successful [aircraft] motor." I don't think we need to hide these assertions to protect Wright and Gibbs-Smith and Dvorak from themselves. Whitehead made good automobile engines but he was, according the mainstream view, unable to combine an engine of his own design and a flying machine of his own design in order to fly successfully. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have the ability to adjust your position when it becomes impossible, I'll be back with criticism of your revised position. The good thing that comes out of this is that you two are forced to reveal more and more of Gibbs-Smith's argumentation. That makes it much easier to respond to his ideas. Roger491127 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Dvorak needs protection against the true story about his motor construction and how not even Whitehead, or any other mechanic, could make it work. That Whitehead would not have knowledge enough to construct a controllable and steerable airplane is refuted by many sworn affidavits and a newspaper eyewitness article, which describes how Whitehead could steer around a bunch of trees, how he could start from one Avenue and land on the next Avenue, then turn around and fly back to the starting point, along a street, avoiding crashes against houses, horses, people, fences, trees, etc.. He could land exactly in the water twice, close enough to the shore so his helpers could pull him ashore. He could fly over an irregular terrain four times on the same day and land on one of the few places which where suitable for landing. This all shows that he could control and steer his airplanes very exactly and land exactly where he wanted to land, and land softly without harming the airplane. It doesn't matter how much Gibbs-Smith writes about Whitehead's lack of theoretical knowledge, the many witnesses of how he flew his airplane refute Gibbs-Smith's theories. Roger491127 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)