Talk:Whitehead No. 21

Aviation historians' opinions dubious
The article writes "Later analysis by aviation historians concluded that the design as a whole was flimsy and aerodynamically unsound.[4]" Yet the article goes on to cite 22 successful flights by replicas of the aircraft (20 Kosch, 1 Robertson, 1 German.)

Each word of one job title begins with a capital (Local Connecticut High School Teacher) while another does not (local entrepreneur and creator of Captain’s Cove Seaport).

The sole reference to the Wright brothers does not contain the customary link to their article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3BCD:D200:55D7:D5C1:E64D:E1BD (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whitehead No. 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324181648/http://www.machine-history.com/Gustave%20Whitehead%20Flying%20Machine to http://www.machine-history.com/Gustave%20Whitehead%20Flying%20Machine
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff7.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Spacing and name
I'll italicize 'No. 21' in the title and text (or does the common name include "Whitehead"?) but the title and text differ on spacing. Is it 'No. 21' as in the title or 'No.21' (with no space) in the text? Or, as the Gustave Whitehead page uses, is the name fully spelled out as 'Number 21'? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia
I am frankly astonished that an article so clearly and unambiguously written in a manner intended to facilitate the dubious claims of those promoting Whitehead's supposed 'flights' has been allowed to stand in the condition it is for so long. It misrepresents sources. It entirely fails to cite numerous easily accessible sources reflecting the mainstream historical consensus that were available when relevant edits were made. It contains unsourced editorialising. It violates multiple Wikipedia policies. I shall, when I get the chance, be engaging in a considerable rewrite, to reflect what aviation historians have to say on the subject. And meanwhile, I'd suggest that those responsible for this BS take the time to reflect on what they have been doing. If you want to rewrite history, find somewhere else to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about the state of this article, but I recommend that you resolve the last major dispute regarding the aircraft (the label of "flying car") before you start the rewrite. You had stated that you don't believe HuffPost and Popular Mechanics' use of the label to be reliable.  If you're going to bring the sources to WP:RS/N, now is the time to do it before you start the rewrite.  I fear that if the issue is not resolved beforehand, it may lead to another heated dispute. -  ZLEA  T \ C 23:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether the non-flying 'flying car' was also a non-car is of relatively minor significance compared to the distortion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm surprised at the vehemence of your criticism of this article. I'll readily acknowledge it can benefit from better and more thorough referencing. I was moderately involved in the early editing of the article. I carry no brief for the claims about Whitehead. I hope that in your prospective rewrite, the text does not transform into a seeming attack on the claims or people who support them. For the record, I want to note that the article, even in its present form, contains multiple qualifications and expressions of official doubt about the claims, to wit:
 * Introduction:
 * claimed to have flown...
 * there are no photographs known of the aircraft in flight...
 * Mainstream aviation scholars dispute the flight...:
 * Body:
 * lateral control was intended to be accomplished...
 * would have contributed to the aircraft's stability had it ever flown...
 * The aircraft could supposedly take off under its own power...
 * Analysis by aviation historians in 1980 concluded that the design as a whole was flimsy and aerodynamically unsound...
 * According to Whitehead and a reporter supposedly at the event...
 * These claims are contested...
 * director of the aerospace department at the Deutsches Museum stated that such a replica was not proof that the original did actually fly...
 * DonFB (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by everything I wrote earlier. The article misrepresents sources, fails to cite numerous easily accessible sources reflecting the mainstream historical consensus, and contains unsourced editorialising. It violates WP:NPOV in a blatant manner. As for an attack on "the claims or people who support them", my comments concern those who appear to have been abusing Wikipedia to promote a fringe perspective. People can believe what they like off-Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, content has to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What are some examples of NPOV violation? DonFB (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this, for a start?
 * Mainstream aviation scholars dispute the flight; in 1980, C.H. Gibbs-Smith called the story a "flight of fancy",[3] but an editorial written for the 2013 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft credits Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a powered heavier-than-air flying machine.[4]
 * The 'but' introducing the Jane's piece is grossly inappropriate. And I find it impossible to believe that nobody reading that since was unaware (a) that the publishers of Jane's subsequently issued a statement to the effect that Jackson's views on Whitehead were his own, not those of the publishers., or (b) that detailed refutations of the claims from multiple established aviation historians have been published since. The lede is grossly misleading, implying that Jane's somehow had the last word on this.


 * A for the remainder of the article, entitling a section based entirely on Whitehead's own claims, and on the credulous and discredited newspaper reports of the period, as 'history' would be bad enough, even ignoring the lack of clarity as to where much of it is coming from. And the 'Replica' section appears to originally have been copy-pasted from somewhere (see this edit ), quite possibly in violation of copyright. I could say more, though for now I'm still looking into it all. And looking at coverage of Whitehead elsewhere on Wikipedia, where much the same problems arise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the text beginning "...but an editorial written..." provides false equivalence and needs re-working and that the subsequent publisher's statement and Tom Crouch (and perhaps Carroll Gray's) refutation should be included in the article. DonFB (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't just that particular sentence. The problem is that the entire article is riddled with claims for which the sourcing is unclear. The lede mentions Jackson's 'Jane's piece, then fails to say a further word about it: nothing on what the arguments were. Nothing about responses to it. Per MOS:LEDE, it shouldn't be there at all (Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article). Instead we get a 'description' with no clear source, and a 'history' section consisting of little but vague handwaving towards contemporary newspapers when it comes to claims of flight. The same newspapers that were willing to print Whitehead's grandiose claims about how his next machine was going to fly from Bridgeport to New York and back (a round trip of around 100 miles) carrying six people. The 'replica' section (which on further inspection is likely copy-pasted from elsewhere on Wikipedia - still a copyright issue since unattributed, though perhaps less concerning) is of course mere POV padding, again poorly sourced (what is the source for Kosch's flights?), and of no real relevance to the question as to whether Whitehead actually flew. The machines weren't accurate replicas. Towed flights prove almost nothing. 'Replicas' with fundamental design differences, built with modern materials, and with modern engines, cannot possibly prove anything about Whitehead. And yet the article goes into considerable length about them, while leaving the obvious sceptical response to a single sentence. Token efforts at 'balance' tacked on to material clearly intended to convince readers of the Whitehead machine's ability to fly are simply unacceptable. There are a whole series of well-sourced commentaries on Whitehead and his numerous claims available that could be cited: not just Crouch and Gray, but others written before and since: the RAeS Historical Group's summary lists a few. And puts the contemporary newspaper reports regarding this flimsy tale into proper context: ...published at a time when ‘spoof’ stories were common... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not recycled credulity from the 1901 equivalent of The Onion. Wikipedia articles about significant events in aviation history need to be sourced to aviation historians, not dubious primary sources and wishful thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * An irony of the Whitehead saga is that much more has been written and published by supporters of the claims than by mainstream academic historians dismissing and debunking the claims. That presents editors here with something of a dilemma. In the name of neutrality and due weight, a Whitehead-related article should not leave the impression that the claims are true or represent something other than a minority view. This, despite the fact that so much verbiage exists on the support side. Mainstreamers have not spent much time or effort dealing with Whitehead. They dismiss him in a relatively small number of published articles or comments. I'm not aware any of them has written a book opposing the claims. True believers, on the other hand, have written, by my count, four books, perhaps seven, if we include a new three-volume series self-published by John Brown.


 * Now, to some of your comments. You said: The 'replica' section [is]...of no real relevance to the question as to whether Whitehead actually flew. I would instead defer to what the sources say, if anything, about the relevance of replicas to the question did he fly, rather than making that judgement as an editor. More to the point, I think, is that the information about the building and testing of two replicas of the titular airplane certainly deserves a place in an encyclopedic narrative about the airplane, regardless of what any editor thinks of a replica's ability to support or undercut the claimed flights. You wrote: 'Replicas' with fundamental design differences, built with modern materials, and with modern engines, cannot possibly prove anything about Whitehead. Maybe, maybe not. Again, it's not a question for editors to decide, and again, the existence of the replicas deserves a place in the narrative. Editors who added text about the replicas might well have been attempting to slant the narrative in the airplane's favor. Even if that's true, it is not difficult, in my opinion, to write text about the replicas that does not push a pov. You wrote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sure, but that is not relevant to our purpose in this, or any, article. This article should not be trying to support or debunk any theory about what the airplane did or didn't do. The article's purpose is merely to describe and summarize what reliable sources have said about the airplane--and the replicas. You wrote: Wikipedia articles about significant events in aviation history need to be sourced to aviation historians, not dubious primary sources and wishful thinking. Agreed. In looking over the existing sources for the article, however, I don't see any that strike me as dubious or wishful. Of course, the article should also include refutations from people like Crouch, Gray and others. At present, it does not, and that's a defect that needs correcting. On the matter of Andy Kosch, here is relatively recent reliable source about him: https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/I-know-he-flew-Replica-of-Gustave-16370724.php#taboola-8 DonFB (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand WP:UNDUE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Andy, you may have a point, yet the successful flights of the replicas seem to have provided some evidence that the claim has a basis in reality. If the replica flights crashed, burned, and showed that the machine was proven unflyable, then yes, the claim could have no factual basis and undue would apply. But they didn't. They flew. One of those inconvenient truths. Adding further neutral and counter claims is of course something that could or should be done with the page and its sources, but pro-Whitehead language seems applicable considering the sources and topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Find a credible aviation historian who states that "the successful flights of the replicas seem to have provided some evidence that the claim has a basis in reality". And no, Wikipedia policy does not in any shape or form make 'pro-Whitehead language' more appropriate in one article than another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just common sense. If the replicas were done well and were built as close as their designers could to the original, and they flew, the original was at a bare minimum possibly capable of flying. Added to the eyewitnesses, the sources seem to hold up for the pro-Whiteside neutral view. Then add as much anti- and hoax language you want, but removing much of the language doesn't solve but creates a neutrality problem. Reading my comment over again I recalled correctly that I didn't imply in any way that something was more appropriate in one article than another. Which other article are you thinking of? Thanks. I don't want to get into a long discussion as I'm not an aviation expert, but I saw your section heading here and that's a pretty serious accusation so, accepting your opinion in good faith, maybe others should be alerted so if it is a disgrace it can be changed. I'm just not seeing it as you are, but others might and a full discussion can take place. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just common sense. Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources. Not on what a particular contributor (a self-admitted non-expert) considers 'common sense'. If the replicas were done well and were built as close as their designers could to the original... 'If'. We cite a source that clearly and unequivocally stated that the 'replicas' used modern materials and engines, and made use of later knowledge not available to Whitehead. And the article cites nothing approaching a reliable source concerning their flying abilities. See the translation of citation 9 in the article. pro-Whiteside neutral view What the heck is that supposed to mean? Wikipedia has only one NPOV policy - and it values subject-matter experts over 'witnesses' that exist only in recycled sub-tabloid newspaper stories cobbled together to entertain readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be right, I don't know. Not my field of expertise, but the topic holds my interest and I've edited Wright Brothers pages here. Wikipedia aviation editors should be notified of your concern, as "This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia" seems a serious enough charge to bring in dedicated aviation editors to ascertain if you're correct ("disgrace" enters what-should-be-done territory. Can you briefly bullet point your preferred solution to let others know what you believe would solve it? Thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The solution is to start again from scratch, and create an article solely based on published reliable sources, reflecting, per core Wikipedia policy, the consensus of subject-matter experts - mainstream academic historians. For a simple summary of said consensus, read the RAeS pdf I linked above. Or, even more briefly, this quote from it: All available evidence fails to support the claim that Gustave Whitehead made sustained, powered, controlled flights pre-dating those of the Wright brothers. The arguments in favour of such flights are based on a single flawed news article combined with questionable witness testimony gathered more than 30 years after the fact. Whitehead’s claims were rejected by contemporary local newspapers and by individuals in the best position to judge, including virtually all of those who funded his experiments. Whitehead left no letters, diaries, notebooks, calculations, or drawings recording his experiments, his thoughts, or the details of the aircraft in which others have claimed he made flights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know if your preference is to eliminate all mention of the replicas from the "21" article, an idea I don't support. You mentioned the translation in footnote #9 in regard to a replica's flying abilities, but I can't tell from your comment if you perceive that source (FOCUS Magazine) to be reliable or not. The translation was done by a Wikipedian at my request several years ago, because I believed the excerpt was a good source of commentary about the use of modern parts in the German replica and the inconclusiveness of its test flights as an attempt to prove the original could fly. I've revisited the site and got a decent translation via Google, which does not exactly match our existing translation, but provides a similarly clear expression of skepticism: https://www-focus-de.translate.goog/wissen/natur/weisskopftaube-fliegt-erfinder_id_1895473.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I would also like to invite you to post a draft in Talk of your preferred text for the Introduction to the article. DonFB (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do I consider FOCUS reliable? I see no reason not to think it is reliable for reporting what other people have said about the replica. Which is all it does. The question is whether the replicas do anything to prove that Whitehead flew his no. 21 in 1901. For which FOCUS itself wouldn't be RS, obviously, if it were trying to make such a statement - it doesn't. And no, I'm not going to write a proposed draft for the lede. As I said above, I think the entire article needs rewriting, and an article lede is supposed to summarise that. Rewriting the article will require access to sources (e.g. Gibbs-Smith) I don't currently have, but I may well consider creating a draft for the entire thing. The replicas might possibly merit a brief discussion, but only to the extent that we have proper sourcing for anything beyond the claims of their creators. As of now, the article contains so much of uncertain or questionable sourcing that it is hard to know what exactly a new draft should contain. Maybe the first question that needs to be addressed is what legitimate reliable sources on the machine, its purported flights, and the subsequent debate are actually available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You appear to criticize FOCUS as a source because it merely reports "what other people have said", which seems to overthrow the entire concept of using mostly independent secondary sources not connected to the subject, rather than primary sources that may be grinding an axe. You said: The question is whether the replicas do anything to prove that Whitehead flew his no. 21 in 1901. Well yes, that is the question, but it's not for us to answer. The answer, or the debate really, is in the sources and should be described in the article, not excluded. We must not apply our personal editorial judgement to suppress knowledge of facts (replicas built & flown) because we decided the results did not overturn (or confirm) mainstream opinion.


 * A paragraph or section about Wright Flyer replicas in this article would be irrelevant. But not one about the "21" replicas. That information is relevant to the subject of the article, regardless of what mainstreamers think about the efforts. Text about the replicas and opinions of them from reliable sources can certainly be written while maintaining Due weight.


 * But I think that the text you might have in mind, "Whitehead supporters built and flew two replicas which didn't prove anything", would not be sufficient coverage of the matter.
 * I understand you want to completely rewrite the article and present editors with a fait accompli. I suggest that's probably not the most collaborative way to approach the task. If I agreed with your severe views about the article, I might say, have at it. But it appears that we have noticeable differences of opinion about relevance, due weight and referencing. A one-fell-swoop approach could produce hard feelings (or worse), if it results in mulitple reversions or re-reversions of text that was never discussed in advance. That's why I asked for a chance to see a draft Introduction, at least to get the process started. I think you know what you want to say, even if you don't write the body first and extract an intro from it. If discrepancies later arise between the Intro and Body, I think it will be relatively easy for editors to make tweaks as needed. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to completely rewrite the article and present editors with a fait accompli. I suggest that's probably not the most collaborative way to approach the task. If I agreed with your severe views about the article, I might say, have at it. But it appears that we have noticeable differences of opinion about relevance, due weight and referencing. A one-fell-swoop approach could produce hard feelings (or worse), if it results in mulitple reversions or re-reversions of text that was never discussed in advance. That's why I asked for a chance to see a draft Introduction, at least to get the process started. I think you know what you want to say, even if you don't write the body first and extract an intro from it. If discrepancies later arise between the Intro and Body, I think it will be relatively easy for editors to make tweaks as needed. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't engage in mind-reading. Or accuse me of attempting to 'supress knowledge'. As for collaboration, the first thing any collaborative effort should involve, surely, is gathering of appropriate sources. Sources for everything the article might reasonably contain. Sources we can discuss the reliability of, per relevant Wikipedia policies. And, after such assessment, determine how to use them, with regard to due weight. So no, I'm not going to write a lede for an article that doesn't currently exist. Please don't ask me again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I consider all of these RS:
 * Two more sources on the Kosch flights, verifying date and a few other details:
 * https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticutmagazine/news-people/article/Gustave-Whitehead-First-In-Flight-or-Fake-News-17042801.php
 * https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Post-photo-veteran-Ratzenberger-dies-4544090.php
 * A photo caption near bottom of next webpage comments on the replicas:
 * https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/History-or-Hogwash-TAH.pdf
 * A page from the German museum website with replica information, acceptably translated by Google; section title: Geburtsstunde der Luftfahrt (Birth of aviation):
 * https://www-weisskopf-de.translate.goog/seite/260863/geburtsstunde-der-luftfahrt.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
 * Carroll Gray's webpage on the original "21" and both replicas (one of many articles on the site about Whitehead):
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20191118011856/http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/no21.html
 * Gray also comments on the replicas and the 1901 claim here:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20191106193324/http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwinfo/event.html
 * Scientific American article:
 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-debunks-claim-gustave-whitehead-was-first-in-flight/
 * Crouch statement:
 * https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/flight-claims-gustave-whitehead
 * RAeS statement.
 * DonFB (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I've not had a chance to look through all the sources in detail, but it seems that we have plenty of material further justifying scepticism about the 'replicas', and their relevance to Whitehead's claims to have flown in 1901. Which leaves us with the newspaper reports and witness recollections from 30 years after the supposed event, rejected by more or less everyone but Whitehead fans. AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * So are you saying the replicas shouldn't be mentioned because they did not prove the original could fly? DonFB (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but I'd certainly say that we shouldn't place so much emphasis on them. Or make misleading suggestions that there were only "a few changes" between the replicas and the original. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Replica text occupies one of four sections; that does not seem unreasonable. I'm amenable to dropping "few" and reworking the description. DonFB (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I really do not see any great problem with this article. I myself think that Whitehead's claims are ludicrous and transparently bogus; I particularly like the steam driven thing which, complete with stoker' is claimed to have collided with a building without attracting any attention whatsoever from the fourth estate. It seems to me that any article on one of Whitehead's machines is obviously going to include a large number of contentious claims. As for the article in Jane's, this was imo a nine-day wonder; the Whithead boosters seized upon it (natch) but it didn't change a thing. As has been pointed out, Jane's is in no way considered an authority on aviation history. It might be appropriate to excise mentions of this aberration? I will remain silent upon my opinion of the sanity of anybody who thinks that flying cars make any kind of sense outside of science fiction. TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The replicas are a non-issue. A replica is a replica. If RS say that a replica was built and flown, then we should document that. If RS say that the replica was or was not a faithful indicator of the original's performance then we should document that too, otherwise say nothing. Walls of text serve only to draw the editor concerned, and perhaps also their victims, away from this simple principle. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No the replicas are not a 'non-issue'. Not while Wikipedia contributors use them to promote the Whitehead fantasy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: The issues raised here have been raised again at Talk:Gustave Whitehead. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

'Design' section
Having checked, via openlibrary.org, I can confirm that the description of the machine in this section isn't from Charles Gibbs-Smith's 'Historical Survey'. Nor is it from 'The road to Kitty Hawk', the only other source cited. While much of it is probably uncontroversial (the machine's basic layout can be confirmed from photographs), neither the statement about dihedral adding stability (which is aerodynamically dubious in an aircraft with no vertical tail surface) nor about shifting bodyweight being used for steering belong in the article without a proper source. We clearly need a proper, sourced, description from somewhere, but meanwhile, at minimum the most questionable claims need to go. I'll leave it for a day or two so someone can come up with proper sources for any of this, then delete them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the weight-shifting, sources appear to differ. One version is that there was some unspecified "rudder" device, but that it was ineffectual and weight-shifting added just enough authority to make a gentle turn. But as so often, later accounts draw on earlier ones and seek to reconcile inconsistencies with a little imagination. For example Weissenborn mentions the weightshifting but not the rudder, so maybe that's a start.
 * On dihedral, there is a distinction between stability about the various axes - pitch, roll and yaw. Dihedral adds stability in roll, a tail fin in yaw; they are (to a first approximation) mutually exclusive. So there is no inconsistency there. The comment about stability can be verified from any textbook, such as Clancy or Kermode, but is possibly gratuitous anyway.
 * I'll see what I can do. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really think that stability in roll and yaw are 'mutually exclusive', I'd advise you to do a little more research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Flight of first replica
The source "Flight Journal" is the online resource from the same publisher as Flight International. Both are popularly referred to as "Flight". Re. the first replica, the cited article states that "We can, however, definitely state that an accurate reproduction of his airframe flew (with modern engines) in 1997." In other words, the replica did fly, contrary to a recent PoV edit warrior. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that said 'POV warrior' also has access to said source, said 'POV warrior' can confirm the said source makes no assertion whatsoever as to how far the overpowered and inaccurate 'replica' flew. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Entirely correct. My point was simply that if Flight endorses a claim of flying, then so must we. The distance is given in the first source cited. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source (CTPost.com) quotes Kosch as saying the inaccurate 'replica' flew 330 feet. That isn't a statement from the source that it actually did so. Not that CTPost should be regarded as much of a source on aviation anyway. I'm sure you are familiar with the way non-specialist news media routinely gets aviation-related subjects wrong, even when they aren't boosting their own local claims to history... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, when I made this edit I couldn't possibly have had any of that in mind. :roll: &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that read 'self-reportedly'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. As reported by CTpost, not self-published. Note too that this time there really is a 100% gen-oo-ine phottygrarf of the thing with its wheels off the ground. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * CTPost quoted Kosch as saying "it was at 330 feet". That's a quote of Kosch saying something. It isn't a statement from the CTPost that the thing actually flew 330 ft. But you know that already, don't you? As for the photo, so what? Back in the 1970's there was a fad amongst RC aircraft modellers for making flying models of all sorts of weird stuff - Snoopy's Doghouse being one of the better ones, though a 'flying lawnmower' drew more attention when it hit someone, leading to much thoroughly-misleading bad press. With enough power you can make lots of things fly. Even higher than the 6 ft AGL still-firmly-in-ground-effect efforts of Kosch, with his wide-track tricycle-undercarriage 50-HP 'replica' mashup. The Whitehead fanclub are clearly pushing these 'replicas' hard, solely because actual evidence for Whiteheads repeated claims to flight (with multiple widely-differing machines that he never seemed to replicate himself) is entirely lacking. Wikipedia is under no obligation to further such hogwash. Perhaps we should hold an RfC on whether the 'replicas' should get more than a passing mention in this article, given their lack of relevance to the article topic, per credible sources not trying to rewrite history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Under what circumstances would you consider the replicas "of relevance to the article topic"? What circumstances now existing cause you to think the replicas deserve only "passing mention"? DonFB (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The circumstances are simple. The topic of this article is Whitehead's No. 21 machine, built in 1901. Just that. Only that. Not inaccurate 'replicas' built many years later in a misguided attempt to prove that Whitehead's machine flew. If the article is going to extend into consideration of such topics, it also needs, per WP:NPOV policy, to give coverage of the many other factors which led mainstream aviation historians to reject the claims about Whitehead - including the many other machines he also claimed to have flown, before and since. Cherry-picking details around this specific machine, while disregarding the broader context of the debate about Whitehead, is thoroughly misleading. What Charles Gibbs-Smith had to say about Whitehead's repeated claims is as relevant today as it was in 1960:
 * The account of the flight on 14 August 1901 in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald reads like a work of juvenile fiction, but Whitehead's frustratingly brief statements are quite straightforward claims for a substantial achievement. They were made in reputable and widely-read journals and could certainly not have been overlooked by contemporary workers. Yet Whitehead continued to work in comparative obscurity, building a variety of aircraft and engines with little success. The acetylene wonder-engine was discarded for the flights of January 1902: Whitehead stated that the aircraft used then was similar to his previous machine, but powered by a 40 h.p. five-cylinder engine fuelled by kerosene. Then both engines and the "successful" monoplane were abandoned, for his next aircraft was a triplane glider clearly based on Chanute's designs, to which he fitted a 12 h.p. two-cylinder kerosene engine with hot-bulb ignition. A single "flight" of 350 metres on this machine was reported in Scientific American of 19 September 1903. Then in December 1905 he applied for a patent, in partnership with Stanley Y. Beach, on a monoplane hang-glider quite different to any of his previous aircraft. This was built in 1906, with a four-wheeled open car underneath on which the pilot stood, and towed flights behind Beach's car were made. About the end of the year a three-cylinder 15-h.p. engine was fitted, but there are no reliable reports of flights. Then a large biplane with a 40 h.p. four-cylinder engine driving two out-rigged propellers was exhibited in unfinished state by the New York Aeronautic Society in November 1908, and failed to fly when tested in the following year; and finally Whitehead's last attempt to fly was a bizarre helicopter with sixty lifting screws in 1911-12. Such a career of retrogression from the successes of I got and 1902 is surely inexplicable; the simplest conclusion must be that those flights of 1/2 mile, 2 miles and 71/2 miles were flights of fancy. Charles Gibbs-Smith Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II. 1985 p 292.
 * That is the broader context. A man who made repeated claims to have flown, in machines variously powered by steam, acetylene, and kerosene. Machines of wildly differing designs, each abandoned after unsubstantiated 'flights' that would surely, had they been genuine, have merited further development rather than going off at yet another tangent. He claimed to have flown in 1899, with a steam-powered machine, in 1901 with the acetylene No 21, and in 1902 with the kerosene-powered No. 22. Why, if such claims were genuine, did he not continue working on such designs? Gibbs-Smith's conclusion is clear: "Flights of fancy", not milestones in aviation. Inaccurate 'replicas' should not be used as on-Wikipedia arguments against sound aviation historiography accepted by overwhelming consensus, and further expanded on by multiple credible sources as a response to later Whitehead-boosterism. If Whitehead's fans want to continue with their efforts, fine. They are entitled to do so. But not on Wikipedia. Not by cherry-picking 'evidence' while ignoring both broader context and mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a particular type of aeroplane. If replicas are attested in WP:RS, it is usual to include them whether or not they are (un)flyable or (in)accurate. See for example the Sopwith Camel, Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054 or the de Havilland DH.88 Comet. No exceptions for lone voices crying in a wilderness of their own making. See also WP:WALLOFTEXT. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to subvert core Wikipedia policies by inventing imaginary rules duly noted. Nobody elected you editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Most replicas of early aircraft feature structural improvements and more powerful engines to improve safety. What makes the Whitehead replica special that it of all replicas should be labeled "inaccurate"?  Is the "inaccurate" label used by a reliable source? -  ZLEA  T \ C 18:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The many fundamental differences (in power plant, construction, and flight controls, as well as clearly visible ones like the wide tricycle undercarriage and modern propellers of the first replica) between Whitehead's No. 21 and the 'replicas' have been discussed in detail in numerous reliable sources, several already cited in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. If you are really unaware of such sources, you probably should do a little research before commenting further on the matter. As for the word 'inaccurate', you should surely be aware by now that an 'accurate' replica of No. 21 would be impossible to construct, since the details simply don't exist. The structure is based on guesswork from photographs, nobody knows what the engine looked like, and almost nothing else is documented at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So the "inaccurate" label is original research, duly noted. If you are really unaware of such sources, you probably should do a little research before commenting further on the matter.  I don't have the time to go through every single line of your walls of text throughout the many discussions on this matter.  If you want me to do a little research, please lay out all your sources right here for myself and everyone to read.  It might also be helpful to start an RfC to establish a consensus on the inclusion of the replica. -  ZLEA  T \ C 19:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Inaccurate' is a summary. An accurate one. Not that it matters, since if you'd actually bothered to read WP:OR, you'd be aware that it states, clearly and unambiguously, that "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards". Discussing the content and validity of sources, and summarising our understanding of them, is a normal part of Wikipedia processes. As for RfCs, that is an option, though given the way this discussion is going, I suspect that may not be the most appropriate course of action. Not while contributors seem intent on ignoring actual Wikipedia policy while making up fictitious rules about content while refusing to address the fundamental issue - grossly undue weight being given to fringe claims rejected by multiple qualified aviation historians. That is a behavioural issue, not a subject for an RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, and putting aside the behavioural issues, it has become increasingly apparent to me that the best way to deal with the balance problem may be to consider deleting this article entirely, instead confining discussion of the No. 21 to articles (e.g. the Whitehead biography) where the broader context can more readily be covered in a more nuanced fashion. Whitehead built (or at least claimed to have) a large number of machines, none of which (other than gliders) are documented to have flown. We don't have articles on them all, and nor should we. The No. 21 has no Wikipedia-notability in its own right, absent of discussions regarding Whitehead and his claims, and presenting it in isolation in the manner this article decontextualises our coverage to the detriment of reader understanding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it clear enough we have a consensus on letting this one rest now. The OP's recognition of their RfC chances, along with their failure to follow up their avowed intent to take their closely-related flying car discussion to RS/N, pretty much wrap up the realities of the situation. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Consensus' cannot override Wikipedia policy. And please stop fantasising about what is going on in my head. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think that an editor with almost two decades of experience would know that consensus is a policy. You are the only one who has voiced concern about this matter breaking NPOV.  The whole point of consensus is to determine if content is consistent with policy, so if you believe your case is strong enough to show that it isn't, you should have nothing to worry about.  Otherwise, you can take your evidence and publish a book, and maybe one day someone will read it and use it as a source here. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you ever considered reading policy pages before citing them? Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.... Such consensus clearly being needed on this subject, though as of now, I'm still considering the merits of alternative approaches towards finding it. As for writing a book, that is unnecessary, since there are already ample sources documenting "supreme master of the gentle art of lying” Gustave Whitehead and his unverifiable claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, if you're so confident, bring it up on a wider scale. Take this all the way up to WP:ARBCOM if you have to.  If you're not confident about your chances, then you're probably wrong.  By the way, you have an interesting way of telling people you have a conflict of interest without outright telling people you have a conflict of interest. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well well well, failure to declare a potential conflict of interest! Read here how critical I am of his archly confessed former employer, and understand his relentless attacks on me! Merely advocating NPOV is evidently as damaging to them as punching for Whitehead, despite their own public acknowledgement of their COI. At least they can be sure that their (erstwhile?) running dog is honouring their contract with the Wrights. But they better hope this new evidence isn't brought up in a return to ANI. I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban, or I might just pursue that last. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Quoting something someone said about Whitehead constitutes a 'conflict of interest'? What complete and utter bollocks. Do either of you ever read the policies you keep spouting? As for topic bans, feel free to suggest them at ANI. I could do with a good laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just someone, your "former employer" who just happens to work for the Smithsonian Institution, which is contractually obligated to solely recognize the Wright Brothers as the first to fly. - ZLEA  T \ C 23:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Former employer'? What the flying fuck are you talking about? I'm quoting someone who once employed Whitehead. Which would be blindingly obvious to anyone that clicked on the link to the source before jumping to ludicrous conclusions. I don't work for the Smithsonian. I've never been to the Smithsonian. I've never been on the same continent as the Smithsonian. And no, before you ask, I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright. Or Orville... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm almost sorry for mixing that up, but I'm not the reincarnation of Wilber Wright. Or Orville... made me reconsider. In fact, I'll politely request that you remove that personal attack. -  ZLEA  T \ C 00:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to tell you less politely to get stuffed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The existence of a direct COI there does appear false. For my part I apologise unreservedly for not checking properly first, and I withdraw my comment. But I have to say, it is no worse than the garbage you have been throwing at everybody who disagrees with you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Say what you damned like. Neither you nor ZLEA managed to convince anyone at ANI that I have been in any way at fault. And back on topic, I am currently still considering the best way to proceed with our coverage of Whitehead and his machines. Given that the issue affects multiple articles, it clearly needs careful thought, and is probably best tackled with a cool head. There is no immediate rush, so don't expect anything for a few days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I struck out my accusations of COI. Hopefully we can come to an understanding and consensus. -  ZLEA  T \ C 16:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I will be looking for first is broader community participation in discussions. This shouldn't be a debate between a few individuals, and the ANI thread seemed to indicate that others share my concerns about the weight being given to pro-Whitehead content etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)