Talk:Gustave Whitehead

Removal of opinion masquerading as fact

Sorry DonFB, but where you inserted into the article:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."

...you're promoting personal opinion as fact. How exactly can you, Engler, Chmiel and the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company justify attempting to make everyone believe you're oracles of the future? In fact, you can't. The craftily worded statement is guilty of conveying nothing other than personal opinion. You, Engler, Chmiel and the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company can no more predict the future than any other charlatans, although it appears you believe you can. If and when actual photos of Whitehead in flight prior to 1903 are published I can see it making the national news and bringing about congressional action, however that's just my personal opinion, and it too doesn't belong in the article. Kindly stick to the facts. HarryZilber (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The authors of the quote are reliable sources within the Wikipedia definition. Of course, it's their opinon. Their views on the matter are as admissable in the article as those of O'Dwyer, Randolph and Brown, et al, who are also "non-academic" researchers (unlike Gibbs-Smith, for example). There is no attempt to disguise their well-informed opinion as "fact." You are free to disagree with their pov, but not by deleting their well-referenced statement from the article. DonFB (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The "well-referenced statement" you reinserted has four citations, two of which do nothing other than discuss Mr. Chmiel's involvement in historical Wright brothers research in a single Dayton Daily News article of December 2004 written by Jim DeBrosse, not by Engler or Chmiel. Engler and Chmiel appear to be unpublished in the book world according to Google. Mr. Nick Engler also appears nowhere in the Dayton article or within "The Case for Gustave Whitehead" webpage the quote comes from; why exactly did you attribute him to that quote?

Your other two citations are to the Wright Brothers Co. website which attempts to discredit Whitehead as much as they seek to promote the brothers their website is named after—hardly unbiased. The promotional website is therefore hardly a reliable source, and since "[Wikipedia can] only publish the opinions of reliable authors" the quote again fails.

Your insertion of Chmiel's stand-alone quote as the final paragraph in the Legacy section based on a single non-published Wright brothers researcher gives undue weight to that statement and leaves the parting impression that Chmiel's (not Engler and Chmiel's) assessment of their legacy is the most pertinent, one that Jane's and National Geographic now take obvious exception to. Sorry, but again, a biased statement that projects an opinion as an ordained future is a fail and should never have been inserted into the article, anymore than Gibbs-Smith's obsessions with UFOs and ghosts, which is, incidentally, much better documented. HarryZilber (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As the Wright Bros.org website states about its articles: "The author/editor is usually Nick Engler, our resident archaeologist and webmaster." Chmiel is also credited on "The Case for Gustave Whitehead" webpage of the site. The John Brown website and, I believe, all other websites devoted exclusively to Whitehead are clearly biased in Whitehead's favor. By consensus, editors of this article have agreed those sites meet the requirements of 'reliable source' as defined by Wikipedia. The Wright Bros.org website has its own bias, but is also clearly a reliable source of information for Wikipedia.

The 'well-referenced' source I refer to is "The Case for Gustave Whitehead" page on the Wright Bros.org website. All other references about authors of the quoted passage were added by one or more other Wikipedia editors; I make no claim to them. The placement of the Engler-Chmiel passage came about by happenstance. It was not always the last item in the GW article, but in the give-and-take of editing, it came to occupy that space. I have no objection to placing it elsewhere in the GW article. DonFB (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What is opinion? It is based on emotion, not fact. Here is a series of facts: Gibbs-Smith was on record with a 50 page diatribe against Stella Randolph, calling for her censure (by whom?), and was verifiably anti-Whitehead. He was then hired by Smithsonian to produce his monograph on Whitehead. He was paid to do it, for a year. Then, when he produced it, Smithsonian did not publish it. So unless that is stated, Gibbs-Smith's monograph needs to be removed. It was not published for very good reasons, I am sure. AviationHist1 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AviationHist1 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion on Gibbs-Smith's motivation is not a reliable source, you need to provide a third party - preferably not affiliated with the Whitehead side - to assert that he was not a neutral commentator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I ask for a reliable source showing that the monograph WAS published. It wasn't. This isn't about opinion it is a fact that it wasn't published. H by C is not opinion as the proofs are provided therein with letters from Smithsonian, etc. You obviously haven't read it. AviationHist1 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually DonFB, the link you provided for attribution says in full: "The author/editor is usually Nick Engler, our resident archaeologist and webmaster. But we have many pages that have been contributed by other people.....", and the webpage in question itself doesn't state that either Engler or Chmiel wrote it -its anonymous, with a note at bottom saying that Lewis (not Louis) Chmiel provided much of the research for the page, not that he wrote it. The website itself is not the Los Angels Times or the Washington Post, or even the Dayton Daily News, its an advocacy website providing biased editorial material. Tiger Woods' caddy could have written the quote—again no evidence of a reliable source for the material pulled from the webpage, accompanied by undue weight when you positioned it as a concluding statement to the section. In summary you've quoted an anonymous source from a biased website devoted to promoting Wright brothers claims while at the same time attempting to discredit other aviation inventors and pioneers. Wikipedia calls that a strike out and would admonish editors for not removing the text. Sorry, the quotation fails Wikipedia's key requirements. HarryZilber (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely reasonable to attribute the quotation to Engler and Chmiel based on the page itself and the site's statement about Engler's authorship. Pages on the site written by other people carry a byline or tagline. To dismiss the Wright Bros.org site as an "anonymous source" is wildly inaccurate, to say the least. The website certainly engages in advocacy, just like John Brown's pro-Whitehead site (also not the L.A. Times or Wash Post), which is now referenced numerous times without complaint in the Whitehead article.

Take note that Wikipedia says:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

That quotation applies equally to pro and con sources about Whitehead.

Your conclusion about 'strikeout' and 'admonish editors' misses the mark entirely.

You might have overlooked my comment above that I did not "position" the quotation as a "concluding statement". It occupies that position now because of subsequent edits by other people. To repeat myself: I don't object to placing the quotation in some other location in the article. DonFB (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

At the very least the prejudicial opinion needs to have its source clearly identified. You haven't presented evidence that Engler and Chmiel provided the opinion you're quoting, only conjecture, and that is now reflected in the text leading up to the quote. It has been revised to reflect which website is providing that opinion and what exactly is being said:

"An example of an opinion expressed by Whitehead skeptics is that of the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company website (often edited by Wright brothers researchers Nick Engler and Louis Chmiel) which dismisses Whitehead's work and influence:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation." "

I appreciate you're a strong advocate of the Wright brothers legacy but I ask that you edit this article (and all others) in the spirit of Wikipedia's ethos, not only to its rules. I hope there doesn't need to be an ongoing reversion war over this text. HarryZilber (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I note the subtle spin in the phrase, "while promoting that of the Wrights," and eliminated it; I also made a few other copyedits. In the remainder of the article, there are many citations to pro-Whitehead websites, especially John Brown's recently, and none of those citations are introduced with that kind of spin, although of course, those websites are themselves zealously "promoting" Whitehead's work and influence. So in the name of balance, let's have no spin, or if you prefer, find an existing citation to a pro-Whitehead website (or write a new one if you like) and introduce it with similar "promoting" phraseology.

Thanks for your helpful advice about editing in the correct ethos. In return, I offer advice that you edit with a good grounding in some of Wikipedia's basic rules, such as that which I excerpted above. DonFB (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Gibbs-Smith being hired by Smithsonian to write an opinion on Gustave Whitehead only has the authoritative ring to it till the Reader learns that Smithsonian declined to publish the monograph. If it was published, please provide the citation so we may see it. Otherwise my note with citation to H by C should stand. AviationHist1 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hired? How insulting. It's clear you have little understanding of the matter. Gibbs-Smith was awarded a high honor and granted a senior scholarship, not "hired". His main focus was the Wright brothers, not Whitehead. He could have researched any aspect of aviation but he chose to concentrate on topics leading to his monograph titled "Study of the Wright brothers and contemporary problems." Among the "problems" were ones that faced every early aviator including Whitehead. Gibbs-Smith ranged widely in his research; during his time as Lindbergh Chair he talked to Frank Winter about Coanda's supposed 1910 jet aircraft, leading Winter to continue the research of Gibbs-Smith and write an article about that sesquiplane (and the strange man behind it), published in 'The Aeronautical Journal in 1980. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You admit that Smithsonian did not publish the Gibbs-Smith monograph, therefore, it should be so noted in the Whitehead Wikipedia article, if it is to be mentioned. If not worthy of publishing, certainly not worthy of mentioning. Yet you mention it as if it was published! Obviously something was wrong with it. At any rate, why are you edit warring about inserting information that is misleading, and incomplete, to imply that this "venerable" old Wright-proponent who wrote a howling piece against Stella Randolph's excellent Whitehead research, was a neutral party wrote a monograph for Smithsonian .... that was published, when it was NOT. That information needs to be in there. You cannot cite the publication of the G-S Monograph, as it doesn't exist. History by Contract IS a source that has primary source documents in it covering the G-S Monograph debacle, reproduced in the book, irrefutable evidence. AviationHist1 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The monograph was published in German [1] though how well it comes across when double translated I cannot say being no expert. The gustave-whitehead.com site only gives selections that it disagrees with not selections it does agree with. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Smithsonian never published the Gibbs-Smith Whitehead monograph." is therefore verified by you as correct. Who published it in Germany and why was it published in Germany and not by Smithsonian? Do you have any other source that can explain this in addition to History by Contract (from the period)? AviationHist1 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Note to all interested in Gibbs-Smith's Whitehead monograph... the article cited on John Brown's site („Weißkopf – verkannter Erfinder oder Scharlatan?“, Gibbs-Smith, "Luft- & Raumfahrt", Jan. 1982, pp. 8-14) is not the monograph which has yet to be published by the Smithsonian. This is an apples and oranges confusion. The "monograph" is something quite apart from the article cited on John B.'s site. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Small Whitehead and Wright joke

A Whitehead researcher and a Wright brothers researcher walk into a bar together. They never walk out.     ;-)   
Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good joke....and almost true. DonFB (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

... but maybe two fly out ? (it's a joke, not a statement of policy) Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidence Section - Details are very important

RE: Evidence section Details are extremely important as not including these have caused unnecessary points of contention amongst historians. Identifying who the journalist eye-witness to the first powered flight in the world is crucial, as is in what capacity he was there. If one is not informed on the Whitehead history it might seem unnecessary. "Mother hens" who eliminate important details misrepresent the history. That is why I undid that elimination,

"The most prominent witness statement came from the journalist from the Bridgeport Herald who described how he witnessed the preparations during the night and the first flight early in the morning of 14 August 1901. The article was published on 18 August 1901, in the Sports section of the Herald, a weekly newspaper, and named two witnesses to Whitehead's reported early morning flight, Andrew Cellie and James Dickie. Some sources attribute the article in the Bridgeport Herald, published without a byline, to then-Sports Editor (Richard) Dick Howell."

The section editors wrote stories without a byline. This helps identify the eye-witness.AviationHist1 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Another reason for additional detail - Smithsonian's head curator has criticized the Bridgeport Herald for not publishing the news of the first powered flight the next day, as if to show that if it were true they'd have done so, when in reality they were a weekly (Sunday) newspaper.AviationHist1 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The evidence should be filtered through the reliable sources. What they select as important or they think makes the case. Otherwise one runs the risk of OR or synthesis. And for the readers benefit, the article needs to be clear and where possible to the point, not a long rambling to-and-fro like a court case.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be a rehashing of detailed arguments, it should be a description of the main points; a summary of the arguments cited to those who have been arguing. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been out of contact for a while, so jumping back in is a little daunting, but it seems things have - once again - heated up, so I thought I'd come see what's under discussion these days. Not surprisingly, much of it is what was being discussed when I stepped away. There is an air of impossibility in what seem to be the expectations some people appear to bring to this article... namely, that this article can and should, in some fashion, "decide" what happened with GW and his machines and whether or not and when he might have "flown." That will never happen here. It is an injustice to history and to all concerned, Wilbur and Orville Wright and GW to engage in such a battle. This article could be half its current length and still be an important and much more readily useable and accessible offering to our readers. So, pertinent to this section of the discussion, more and more "details" in this instance conflict to some extent with the need for clarity and ease of use. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This article must be accurate and unbiased, what do you consider to be "authoritative sources"? Smithsonian? That is a biased source by definition, due to its shameful Contract with the Wright heirs that allowed them to obtain the Wright Flyer by never recognizing ANYONE to have flown before the Wrights. Wright authors? I don't think so. Wright proponents? Whitehead bashers? I don't think so. Remember, authoritative sources have a tendency to defend their own archaic viewpoints, such as "the world is flat". For profit and gain, Whitehead was never acknowledged, over the last century. It is time to allow the facts, with their citations, into the public eye. The house of cards is coming down. This article is not the cause of it, but it is an important, and increasingly credible source of facts. The idea that it should be short may come from those who are afraid that the facts will come out. I have not seen anything factual come from those sources in other writings, I have seen biased conjecture only. AviationHist1 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the author of the 18 August 1901 Bridgeport Sunday Herald article "Flying" - this was explored at considerable length many months ago in these discussions and it is fair and true to say that naming Richard Howell as the author is done without evidence. He is not on record as ever claiming that article, while others have speculated that he was the author - which hardly constitutes evidence of fact. Likewise, AviationHist1 confuses Orville Wright's error about the seemingly late publication of the story with some notion that an (unnamed) "Smithsonian's head curator" made that statement. Please, tell us who that person is and quote that statement with a source, AviationHist1, if you can. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian recently made the negative comment about the purported "late publication" of the story, it is one of his stock criticisms. Orville's comment, which it likely stems from, is just as misleading.

"Comments on the Bridgeport Sunday Herald article: The fact remains that Richard Howell’s article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald was published four days after the event as a feature story on page five, in a story captioned with witches on broomsticks flying overhead. " http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/2013/03/27/dr-crouch-responds-to-john-brown/

Can a Sunday paper be published on another day? NO. How long did it take for the Wrights to have articles that covered their purported flights on Dec. 17, 1903? Certainly their own first statement was in 1906 and the first publication of any reliable report was much longer than four days.

I edited the 4th paragraph to identify John Brown as an advocate for GW and to clarify the matter of the 1906 exhibition photo and what was said in the article which accompanied the photo. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

John is a Whitehead researcher, not an advocate. I think that needs correction, Carroll. It does not sound appropriate and has a misleading ring to it.

Perhaps you didn't notice how John Brown's flightjournal.com "Open Letter" to Tom Crouch was headlined... "An Open Letter to Dr. Tom Crouch, Smithsonian Institute, From John Brown, Whitehead Advocate" - to term John Brown a "Whitehead Advocate" is not misleading in the least. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's misleading to label John Brown a "Whitehead Advocate". Would it be fair to label Tom Crouch a "Wright brothers Advocate"? Isn't Crouch, in one form or another, just another recipient of the vast riches generated from promoting the Wright brothers as "first in flight"? This article is confusing to readers looking to Wikipedia for content on the history of Connecticut Aviation.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't give John Brown the title of "Whitehead Advocate" - as I've said, his open letter to Tom Crouch is headlined as such. So it's not being unfair to him to repeat that title. Are you saying there is something wrong with being a Whitehead advocate ? I sincerely doubt there have been any "vast riches" to garner up in the "First Flight" world, and whatever Tom Crouch has managed to acquire has been well-earned and well-deserved, as I see it. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of Newspapers Incorrectly Represented with Low Number

I just corrected the mistake in this article that claimed only 9 newspapers reported the 1901 flights of Gustave Whitehead. The number is actually 73 and these may all be seen at http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/news-reports-1901-2-flights/ which is the citation I gave for this number. This is a blatant example of those who would write such a low number to be denigrating Whitehead, which has been corrected. AviationHist1 (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that text was originally added by a strong Whitehead supporter, long before John Brown's website was online. Not everything you don't like about this article is the result of an evil conspiracy. Lighten up, AVH1. DonFB (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

To mention that a certain number of newspapers carried stories related to GW's activities during 1901 would be misleading, unless the articles were differentiated between original stories and re-writes. By far the greatest number of stories were re-writes, so it might be fair to say something such as "dozens of newspapers repeated stories of Whitehead's claimed flights." It is misleading to toss out a large number without providing context. Also, AviationHist1, be clear on what you read here - there was no statement I can find that "only 9 newspapers..." - what I read is quite different "Over the next few months, the story ran in nine other American newspapers, some as far away as California and Arizona." Does that sound denigrating to you ? It certainly doesn't to me.

With respect to your quoting of Tom Crouch, you have again misread what was written. TC wrote "The fact remains that Richard Howell’s article in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald was published four days after the event as a feature story on page five, in a story captioned with witches on broomsticks flying overhead." Indeed, it was published 4 days after the event. I don't see (as you apparently do) that TC repeated Orville Wright's error at all, certainly OW didn't note that the article appeared in a weekly, TC certainly knows that it did. My one disagreement with what TC wrote is that he accepts R. Howell as the author of the article, which, I believe, is an unproven assertion. So, again, I ask you to read carefully and to not infuse what you are reading with what you assume is being said. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I note that Binksternet reverted the text so it again refers to 9 newspaper articles, not 73, with the justification that "John Brown's list is not reliabel" (sic). I looked at the list in question (as shown in the citation), and clicked many, but not all, of the links. Each link that I followed retrieved what clearly appears to be an actual image of a published newspaper or magazine article, so I do not understand the justification that the 'list is not reliable'. If the list had no links, or had links that don't show the actual articles, that would be a different matter.

The broader issue is that Brown's site is clearly one of advocacy, but such sites or publications can be permitted as reliable sources under Wikipedia policy, as I recently explained on this Talk page to another editor. I can see no reason for not using the larger number, cited to Brown's webpage, when referring to the number of published articles about Whitehead's reported flight. As Carroll says, we must avoid misleading readers into thinking there were multiple reporters who witnessed a flight. I don't think the text, as currently written, is misleading, but it can be modified to be even more sure of avoiding that possibility. My suggestion:

"For many months afterward, American newspapers throughout the country published dozens of articles about that mentioned Whitehead's reported flight, although the original Bridgeport Sunday Herald article was the only one written as an eyewitness account."

I believe that's factual and gives a fair indication of the publicity which the reported flight received. DonFB (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Not far off. Several of the articles given are reporting the join up between Custead and Whitehead and the flight claim(s) is mentioned in passing. Most look like the same story reprinted, and some do use "claimed" rather than taking it as solid fact. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of Binksternet's edit warring. Changing the number back to 9 when clearly it is 73. I am glad he did this as it will prove my point on what is going on here with this article. Deliberate misrepresentationo of the number of articles that were published on the Whitehead flights of Aug. 14, 1901 has occurred by Binksternet's change of the number. Since he likes to threaten me with edit warring, I believe I will not take the bait but will report him again for it. The rest of you can decide if you wish to participate in such unprofessional actions. AviationHist1 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AviationHist1, it would be helpful if you took the time to look at each of the 73 articles you mention and count how many of them are re-writes or reprints of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald story. It is misleading to merely state "73" without specifying how many of those 73 were original and how many were re-writes and reprints. In addition, as I looked at the list on John B's site, I saw that several were concerned with events other than the 14 August 1901 story. So, rather than be upset about which number is being cited, why not be helpful and clarify for our readers what the situation was. Also, I've made several changes in the first three paragraphs of the article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I looked through some more of the list. The last only mentions dirigibles but is incomplete. The Western Argus one also mentions dirigible airship for a "balloon race". The Western Australian article of the previous month and that from Brisbane are the same text it seems. The Honolulu article is similar, but the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle has more content. It describes Whitehead's claimed flight though unfortunately not specifically stating a 'plane rather than an airship. A case of Chinese whispers as the news story is repeated? Some of the reported expectations of Whitehead seem overly ambitious, perhaps these also suffered in the retelling and made Whitehead's claims less plausible. (I don't know).

There's enough there to certainly claim that Whitehead's name and involvement in aircraft (of all kinds) was in the news in those years. Whether that's a lot of coverage or not is not for me to say. That would be a lot of effort and only turn out to be OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WHY & WHAT

WHY are we doing this and WHAT are we doing... I'd enjoy hearing that everyone who contributes here does so because they wish to produce a clear, neutral and reliably-sourced article about GW, of which our readers can make ready and easy use. Unfortunately, it strikes me that at least a few editors seem to be here to serve their own ends. We're working for our readers, not for ourselves... show of hands ? agree ?

If anyone is here with the intention of promoting a claim on GW's behalf or, conversely, seeking to damage Wilbur and Orville Wrights' status, perhaps there are other places where those persons' time and energies would be better spent. Just my two cents... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the case is that some may think that, in our attempts to reach a neutral article from those Reliable Sources, we are reinforcing the discrediting of Whitehead's claims. For those who see him as an underdog cynically divested of proper credit for the work he did do, a rigid adherence to the existing body of sources (which tend to be dimissive) positions us on the side of those sources.

(small joking aside follows) For myself I am immune to claims of patriotism re the Wrights, I don't have the time; I'm still trying to hunt down that photograph of Cayley's coachman in the air. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The slant of this article is stuck on one viewpoint; Whitehead could not have flown in a heavier-than-air flying machine (airplane) in 1901, because the Wright brothers had not invented it yet.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

the "slant" of the article is that to date there has not been conclusive proof that Whitehead flew before anyone else. There are opinions and counter opinions that he had the means and knowledge to do so but no photographic evidence, or unimpeachable witnessing seems to exist. There are those who accept what evidence does exist and there are those that don't. And on the whole the doubters have had the greater authority. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, Tomticker5, I'm not interested in slanting this article in one direction or another, and anyone who is working on this article who has an intention of slanting it in one direction or another should really re-consider whether they ought to be contributing at all. I am interested in pruning this weedy article, and making it clearer, more accessible and more informative to our readers. As it stands, in my view, it is overly long, overly detailed, overflowing with side issues, and reeks of contention. That can hardly be attractive to our readers. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV? Eye witnesses to his "flights" are called "liars", neutral researchers are called his "advocates" and now even well respected publishers have been "hoodwinked". GW has his place in the history of Connecticut Aviation, however, this article is stuck in a rut.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've managed to miss the "liars" comments, and if you are referencing John Brown as a neutral researcher, please consider how his open letter to Tom Crouch was headlined (I mentioned this above). Which publishers were "hoodwinked" ? If you're going to toss out comments like that, please provide more substance and try to offer more to those of us who are left guessing about what your comments relate to. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Article intro

The intro has really turned into something of a monstrosity as editors have stuffed it with excessive and redundant detail, in some cases repeating, verbatim, text that already exists in the body of the article.

The intro should summarize what's in the article, not repeat chunks of it word-for-word. Especially egregious is the Intro's long-winded discussion of the photos. That material already exists (or can be modified as appropriate) in the body of the article. The Intro need not discuss the 1906 Exhibition, or Stanley Beach, or Gibbs-Smith, or Randolph's motivation for writing her first book, for that matter.

General statements should suffice that an eyewitness newspaper report (and ancillary publicity) and later research and interviews support the flights, and that historians, primarily those associated with the Smithsonian, don't. The Intro should not attempt to dive into the gory details about those issues. Such material should be saved for the body of the article, where, in fact, it already exists.

Fragments of the Whitehead life chronology apppear here and there in the Intro, like so much flotsam, having been cut off from their original, logical placement as the Intro has been jerked around by competing editorial changes.

So....I plan to try my hand at slimming down the Intro, especially the text about the photos. I don't intend to remove anything substantive that already exists in some location in the article, but if other editors think I have, I'm sure they'll point that out. DonFB (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Here's the diff from April 9 to now, showing how a bunch of unneeded detail and redundancy crept into the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That went much quicker than I expected. For now, my revision strips the Intro of all footnotes. Article Introductions are not required to have footnotes, although they can. I believe all the footnotes remain in the article in other positions, but I'll check further on that. If you see that a footnote/reference has been lost completely, alert the Talk page and we can restore it. DonFB (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see some "cite error" entries in the footnote list. I'll restore the material and get those fixed. DonFB (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Seem to all be fixed now, with a big assist from the bot. If anything is still missing, tell Talk page, or have a go at DIY. DonFB (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB, very much improved, terrific job and so quick, thank you ! Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Carroll. Good to see you again. DonFB (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The introduction now states that GW was a builder of machines "meant to fly". Not completely accurate or neutral a statement, in my opinion, especially considering all the sources that state otherwise. May I suggest the following be inserted in the introduction? "...he was either the first man to fly a heavier-than-air machine in 1901 — according to sources at the time — or he never flew at all — suggested later by some aviation historians".Tomticker5 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting phrasing, although I have a suspicion that you may intend it as humor. I think it is synthesis, but I'd like to hear what others say. In fact, it might be interesting to tag it for a Third Opinion from a disinterested editor. If it were to be used in the article intro, I would amend it slightly to say: "... -- or he never flew at all -- as stated later by aviation historians." Personally, I would not object to its presence, but only if consensus approves it as not synthesis. On the other hand, I might eventually decide that it is synthesis, and then I'd object to its presence. DonFB (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Its unfair not to acknowledge any success he had with gliders. Perhaps there is an alternative phrasing which permits of the use of the word (heavier than air) aircraft without clashing with the did he/didn't he issue. Perhaps referring to "constructing his own designs for aircraft" which clearly states he was building real machines, they were his own ideas, and the intention of an aircraft is to fly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It was not intended to be humorous at all. Historian Reverend Samuel Orcutt used a similar statement in 1886 to illustrate the conflicting facts pertaining to the number of original English settlers at Stratford, Connecticut; "founded in 1639 by Puritan leader Reverend Adam Blakeman (pronounced Blackman), William Beardsley, and either 16 families—according to legend—or approximately 35 families—suggested by later research".Tomticker5 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I'll say that I like the phrasing, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. It makes an original research-type conclusion using Wikipedia's editorial voice to say that GW "did this" or GW "did that". If a reliable source made that kind of statement, we could use it and reference it. But this encyclopedia is prohibited from engaging in its own "compare and contrast" language. An outside source would have to do it. DonFB (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

When I changed the wording to "meant to fly" it was for the purpose of making the statement neutral. Saying GW's machines were "meant to fly" is not saying they didn't, or saying that they did, it is just a statement that he, GW, meant them to fly. Anyone who reads that as "meant to fly and didn't" or as "meant to fly and did" is filling in with their own preconceptions. Also, whether GW "flew" is not an either/or matter... it's not a question of whether he did or not. There is a wide gap between those two positions... remember that it is generally agreed that in 1890 Clement Ader got a heavier-than-air powered machine (his "Eole") which had controls (ineffective but they were there) off the ground for some short distance of perhaps 50m (160ft)... but did he "fly" ? It's also generally agreed that he did not "fly" in our understanding of that term.

Part of what we are all grappling with here is a matter of definition, those three simple words "fly," "flying" and "flight" need some clarification. To hop off the ground for a little ways or to slip along a short distance above the ground while under ground effect is not "flight." I've written articles about my own belief (not to bring in OR, but to merely clarify my point) that GW managed to hop off the ground under power and gravity and to skim in ground effect for distances, as, indeed, many witnesses to various events involving GW and his machines say happened. However, GW did not, I believe "fly."

So, "meant to fly" was meant to be neutral.

To use the phrase you offer, Tomticker5, is make too stark a choice, one which excludes a wide range of possibilities, included in which might actually be what GW did. I don't think posing the matter in such an "either/or" way serves any purpose and limits the matter too much. In the example you cite, notice that the wording is "approximately 35" - meaning it might be 38, 40, 45, or 30, 32, 34, etc., etc. Your example is not an "either/or" proposition but your suggested phrase is. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a revolutionary suggestion: how about saying, "...he designed and built aircraft and engines of various types...." 'Aircraft' includes his gliders, which did become airborne. Using 'aircraft' in the opening sentence gently sidesteps the issue of what any of his powered machines did. The next sentence ("For decades...") gets into specifics of what his powered machines may or may not have done.

And we're home free....! DonFB (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view. Your reworked introduction is "meant" to be neutral, but it is not. It excludes a statement that GW "flew". That should be clearly stated early in the introduction.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean he "flew" in a glider, which is not disputed? Or that he made a powered flight? A sentence could be added, or extended, to say that he made glider flights.

The main reason I revised the intro was to make it more readable while retaining its same basic points, which already seemed to confer reasonable neutrality. DonFB (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph could state summarily; "there is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what he in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first man to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others contend his machines never flew at all.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to using a phrase such as this... "Whitehead made gliding flights between 1904 and 1908." To say he "flew" without stating what that means is misleading. Tomticker5, I won't repeat my reasoning as to why "meant to fly" is neutral, except to say you're reading something into that phrase that isn't there. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not bad, Tom. It gets away from using Wikipedia's voice. In fact, it's a little similar to something I wrote a long time ago, which is buried in the Legacy section. However, it probably gives undue weight to the minority opinion that favors GW. Clearly, though, Jane's has changed the balance somewhat, so the minority view may now be a little less minor. I would probably want to change "Some historians insist...." to: "Some researchers insist..." And change "while others contend" to: "while established historians state..." I think it would also be appropriate to reverse the order, starting with "established historians" and ending with "some researchers". Let's see what other comments this proposal may elicit. DonFB (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the following combination agreeable ? "There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what he in fact accomplished. While established historians state his powered machines never flew at all, some researchers insist that in 1901 he was the first person to fly in a powered flying machine. There is general agreement that Whitehead made unpowered gliding flights between 1904 and 1908." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I would offer this:

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built aircraft and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915.

For decades, controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew his powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, predating the first flights made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

A sharp difference of opinion exists among aviation historians as to what in fact he accomplished. Established historians state that his powered machines never flew at all. Other researchers insist that Whitehead was the first person to fly in a powered flying machine. In 2013 the 100th anniversary edition of the authoritative Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. There is general agreement that Whitehead made unpowered gliding flights between 1904 and 1908.

Much of Whitehead's reputation rests on a 1901 unsigned eyewitness newspaper article that stated he made a powered controlled flight in Connecticut in August that year.

In the months afterward........etc."

It remains important to highlight, upfront, his notability as a person about whom claims and reports place him ahead of the Wrights as first to fly heavier-than-air. What do y'all think of using "aircraft" in the opening sentence? DonFB (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd simplify it a bit - many disputed claims revolve around witnesses, paperwork and there's nothing singular about some lone document or witness as such - this would make the sentence cleaner and so the key content is more obvious. As such the second sentence could go

"(For decades), controversy has surrounded claims that he flew his powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, predating the first flights of the Wright Brothers in 1903."

or even

"(For decades), controversy has surrounded claims that he achieved successful powered flight in1901-1902, predating the first flights of the Wright Brothers in 1903."

and for the first sentence, that could be cleaner too

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was a German aviation pioneer who emigrated to the United States where he designed and built various aircraft and engines between 1897 to 1915"

a thought or two anyway.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Those all look good to me. Just to clarify, do you recommend dropping the phrase "For decades"? DonFB (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily drop decades, it was more that that the qualifier in brackets was flexible and other phrases could fit in there eg "since 193x", "since his cause was championed by xxxx", "for the last nn years". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I could support...

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was a German aviation pioneer who emigrated to the United States where he designed and built various flying machines, both powered and unpowered, and engines between 1897 to 1915"

"Controversy surrounds claims that he achieved successful powered flight in 1901-1902, predating the first flights of the Wright Brothers in 1903 and a sharp difference of opinion exists among aviation historians as to what in fact he accomplished. Established historians state that his powered machines never flew at all. Other researchers insist that Whitehead was the first person to fly in a powered flying machine. In 2013 the 100th anniversary edition of 'Jane's All the World's Aircraft' credited Whitehead as the first person to fly a powered heavier-than-air flying machine. There is general agreement that Whitehead made unpowered gliding flights between 1904 and 1908."

"Much of Whitehead's reputation rests on a 1901 unsigned weekly newspaper article that stated he made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year."

I dropped "authoritative" from the description of "Jane's" because "Jane's" is not a history publication, it is an industry publication, it can be called authoritative when it comes to aircraft currently in production, but that is not appropriate in this instance. I also used "flying machines" as "aircraft" and "airplane" are anachronisms - also, remember GW called No.21 an "automobile" more than once - so "flying machines" is by far, in my mind, the preferable term. Further, I added "powered" to be more specific and to differentiate between his glider flights and the controversial claims of powered flights. I also removed "eyewitness" anmd replaced it with "weekly" because if the event didn't happen how there could there be an eyewitness - to say there was an eyewitness is to say the event happened. Otherwise we need to qualify with additional language such as "an anonymous reporter who claimed to have been an eyewitness." Saying "a 1901 unsigned weekly newspaper article" is simply a statement of fact devoid of any advocacy. Finally, I removed "controlled" from "powered controlled flight" since a fair reading of what GW states in the Sunday Herald article tells us the "flight" - if it happened - was anything but "controlled." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning about "eyewitness" and the need to qualify it, if it is included. I think 'eyewitness' should be included, because it is so crucial to the whole case for GW. My suggested--and hopefully brief--qualifier would be: "Much of Whitehead's reputation rests on a 1901 unsigned weekly newspaper article written as an eyewitness report that stated Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year."

The use of "weekly," though technically accuate, may add a bit of unnecessary confusion, as phrased: does it mean a weekly article, or a weekly newspaper? But more to the point, I don't think it helps the reader very much at this early stage of the article. Of course, in the article body, there is very adequate--and appropriate--discussion of the publication schedule and its significance. Some rearrangement of the wording you've suggested could hopefully eliminate any confusion about what 'weekly' refers to, although I think the Intro would be quite ok if 'weekly' is not included.

I'm fine with how you handled the flying machine/powered/unpowered issue. Regarding Jane's: other edits/citations in the article have made a point of referring to Jane's as the "bible" of aviation. I can certainly live without calling Jane's 'authoritative'. On the other hand, I feel we should try to signal--somehow--to the reader that Jane's is not merely some run-of-the-mill aviation publication.

Regarding "controlled". I can't entirely disagree with your point that the reported flight was not truly controlled. But that's our opinion, not that of a reliable source. Again, the GW case rests heavily on the idea that the reported flight was both powered and controlled. I think that, somehow, we need to make that point in the Intro. This is subtle and tricky stuff, which invites (sigh) more discusson. DonFB (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DonFB, what about this... "an article in a weekly newspaper written by a claimed eyewitness"; the distinction about "Jane's" - and it is an important one - is that "Jane's" serves the aviation industry, and is not an historical publication, so to be fair and precise, we shouldn't use "authoritative" - glad you can live with that. I'd describe "Jane's" statement about GW in this way, "In 2013 the 100th anniversary edition of the aviation industry's leading publication, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first person to fly a heavier-than-air flying machine." Well... DonFB, I cannot agree that removing the word "controlled" from the description of the supposed 14 August 1901 "flight" is based on opinion. It's based on what GW himself had to say about his experience, he certainly did not say he controlled the machine, whatever it did or did not do, indeed he said he didn't control it, as he lacked "the machinery" to so do. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I like your solution to the Jane's issue, nicely done.

Now, to the thornier stuff. The phrase "claimed eyewitness" does connote considerable skepticism, but is unsourced as such. In view of the multiple sources in the GW article that name Howell, I think we need to find more neutral, but effectively qualified language, that still retains "eyewitness" (roger will be fainting if he's reading this). In any case, the substitution of "weekly" does not come across as somehow equivalent to "eyewitness."

Regarding "control": Good point that the Herald article quoted GW as saying his "machinery" lacked the ability to steer. On the other hand, the Herald article also goes to some length to describe GW steering around the "sprouts"--admittedly with body-shifting--and landing "lightly". But again, we are applying our interpretations of what the article says, and for editing purposes here, we're not reliable sources. My sense is that some of the vintage newspaper articles describe it as a controlled flight (although possibly without using the word "controlled"), and that GW supporters almost certainly consider it to be controlled. I think that in introducing the subject of the "flight," we should endeavor to characterize it as it was perceived in the media of the time. We definitely should not characterize it based exclusively on our personal readings of the Herald article; we need to use additional reliable sources that address the question. DonFB (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, just had to mention this, since it seems so relevant. Describing GW flying around the trees, the author of the Herald article wrote:

"The ability to control the air ship in this manner..."

But we may find it beneficial to use additional sources to arrive at a neutral formulation. DonFB (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would say that as a reliable source GW's own quoted words would trump the un-named "eyewitness" reporter's observation of whether or not the "flight" was controlled, and so maybe we should introduce some of GW's quoted material in the introduction about this aspect of not having control over the machine until his moment of inspiration... or maybe we could just not include the word "controlled" in the introduction and discuss the matter in the body of the article. I'd prefer the latter. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's text that I believe addresses concerns we've been discussing:

"In 1901 an unsigned newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, reported that Whitehead made a powered flight controlled by shifting his body weight. Whitehead was quoted as saying the machinery itself offered "no means of steering". In the months afterward....etcetera...."

I think everything in this suggested text is strictly factual, although that does not mean that I, or anyone reading it, should believe that it describes actual events. What we're trying to do in this part of the Introduction is accurately describe a moment in history as it has been handed down to us. Text suggested by Tomticker and massaged by other editors, if included in the intro, will describe in general terms the dismissal of the report/claim by established historians, counterbalancing this brief description of the (alleged) historical event. Text in the "1901" section also needs to be modified to address the concern regarding 'control'.

We need to decide if the Intro should contain both the Tomticker/editors' text, as well as later text which again describes dismissal by established historians, in this case identifying them as Smithsonian-affiliated. I'd recommend that the Intro combine the material, to avoid a new drift into redundancy and rambling. DonFB (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this where we stand, now ?

"Continuing controversy surrounds claims that he achieved successful powered flight in 1901-1902, predating the first flights of the Wright Brothers in 1903 and a sharp difference of opinion exists among aviation historians as to what in fact he accomplished. Established historians state that his powered machines never flew at all. Other researchers insist that Whitehead was the first person to fly in a powered flying machine. In 2013 the 100th anniversary edition of the commercial aviation industry's leading publication, Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first person to fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. There is general agreement that Whitehead made unpowered gliding flights between 1904 and 1908."

"In 1901 an unsigned newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, reported that Whitehead made a powered flight controlled by shifting his body weight. Whitehead was quoted as saying the machinery itself offered "no means of steering". In the months afterward..." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. But that first sentence needs to be broken in two:

"...flights of the Wright brothers in 1903."

<new paragraph> "A sharp difference of opinion...."

I want to avoid the redundancy of: "Established historians state...", and then later in the intro: "Established aviation historians, especially those...." The Smithsonian affiliation could be mentioned the first time the text talks about "established...historians". The redundant 2nd time the text talks about "established...historians" could be cut. Instead, the text could say: "....led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims and dismiss them again."

I also want to strengthen the "agreement" wording somewhat by saying:

"Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers that prohibits the Institution from recognizing any aircraft other than the 1903 Wright Flyer as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight. The agreement can require...."

Thoughts about that?

The next paragraph, about Jane's, would be cut, if we've already placed it earlier in the Intro. DonFB (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence break is a good one. "mainstream historians" is useful to avoid redundancy. On "The Agreement" (which is the term that should be used)... the Agreement is between the Estate of Orville Wright and the United States of America, signed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution (who was not empowered by any act of Congress to encumber the United States of America). I know that what I am writing likely constitutes OR but I want to place this in the discussion record and make a point about how THE AGREEMENT could overwhelm the GW article - the machine that was to be delivered by Orville Wright's Estate is termed the "Original Wright Brothers' Aeroplane" in the Agreement. As you probably know, DonFB, the derelict wreckage of the 1903 Flyer was rebuilt in 1916 for a display at MIT (after the final flight's damage and after the flooding in Dayton and after engine parts had been removed for display then were never returned). So, at a minimum two questions float in the breeze above The Agreement, is the aeroplane on display really THE 1903 Flyer - if it isn't then the Agreement is meaningless - and was the Smithsonian Secretary empowered to sign on behalf of the United States of America ? short answer - "No." The Agreement is a document which might have very little enforceable authority, save for that given to it by the successors to The Agreement. Of course neither side would relish adjudicating this in court. My point in bringing this up is to indicate what a nest of vipers The Agreement is (beyond even how it appears in this context), and to believe that we can deal with it in a truly meaningful way within the GW article seems difficult. It could be dealt with, without requiring a mass of explanation in the GW article, by a well-conceived summary in the GW article and a link to the History By Contract wiki page. Finally, the image used for The Agreement does not show the entire Agreement. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, Carroll. If the day comes and all these legalistic complications arise in the real world, we (or whoever is editing GW then) can grapple with it. At the moment, I'm not concerned that the article's Agreement text will expand too much (or at all). If we, as editors, actually begin trying to tame the body of the article, we could make some revisions to the Agreement material which currently exists in the O'Dwyer-Smithsonian section. As that stands, though, I don't think it is excessive, but like so much of the article, it could perhaps be edited to make it cleaner. DonFB (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Image

It isn't clear to me why the photo of "Junius Harworth" is in the article. There is very little said about him in the text, and it seems odd, therefore, to have his photo posted. I would remove it on my own, but I thought I'd see if someone can state a good reason for it to stay. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Roger liked it :-) DonFB 11 June 2013

Fond memories... Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard anything for a couple days that would explain why "Junius Harworth"'s photo should remain in the GW article, I've removed it. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just read this. Junius Harworth witnessed GW's flight on August 14, 1901. He gave a sworn statement to John B. Crane in 1936. I'll re-insert image and caption it correctly.Tomticker5 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also very telling that you removed this image without any regard to reading the content in the article about him. Are you sure you don't have ulterior motives?Tomticker5 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't care much one way or the other if the Harworth photo is in the article. But the caption now written needs to be changed. It makes two statements without qualification that are not non-controversial: that Harworth was a "witness" and that a "flight" took place. If the picture stays, the caption should say something like "Junius Harworth said that as a boy he saw Whitehead fly on August 14, 1901."

links with other aviators

There's a passing mention of a possible link with Lilienthal in Germany and several of the newspapers from 1902 and 1903 mention a linkup with W D Custead. There seems to be little about Custead about but Lilenthal is a major figure and if there is a reliable source for a link it shouldn't be in the Legacy as such but in the proper chronological part. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A suggested introduction

Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew his powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flight made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

In 1901, a newspaper article written by an uncredited eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered controlled flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.

Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines for aircraft. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.

In the years that followed, spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims. The Smithsonian Institution, has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.

There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first man to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901.Tomticker5 (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB, I assume that you wrote the "suggested introduction" (I don't see an attribution - hmmm... were you writing for the Bridgeport Sunday Herald in 1901 ?) - it is a major improvement and summarizes matters well, while retaining neutrality. I will suggest a few changes, however.

FIRST Paragraph: for reasons discussed previously, I suggest that we not mix "aircraft," "airplane" and "flying machines" - I much prefer "flying machine" for devices of this period, it avoids any anachronistic associations.

SECOND Paragraph: instead of "uncredited" I'd suggest using "unidentified" - "uncredited" could be read as a negative. Also, "powered flight" instead of "powered controlled flight."

THIRD Paragraph: next, change "designer and builder of lightweight engines for aircraft" to "designer and builder of lightweight engines" - his engines were not used exclusively in flying machines, but also in at least one boat and in his "No. 21" "automobile" as he called it. Leaving out "for aircraft" avoids a longer explanation in the Intro.

FOURTH Paragraph: change "In the years that followed, spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims." to "Research in the 1960s and 70s and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led mainstream historians to renew examination of the claims. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight." - the reason being between 1908 or so and the mid-1930's, GW was not a topic at all. The current language indicates that there had been a continuing stream of debate about his work and accomplishments, but there wasn't.

SIXTH Paragraph: change "the first man to fly" to "the first human to fly" or to "the first person to fly" - "man" contrasts with "woman" and stating it as it is leaves open the possibility that a woman flew first. Better to be all-inclusive. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 to 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which would have predated the first flights made by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

In 1901, a newspaper article written by an unidentified eyewitness, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months afterward, information from the article was widely reported being reprinted in dozens of newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904.

Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927. In the late 1930s, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier.

Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 to recognize Wilbur and Orville as first to make a controlled, powered flight.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.

There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead in fact accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew. In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has stirred up debate over who flew first. The state of Connecticut, has since passed legislation stating Whitehead flew in 1901."Tomticker5 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tomticker5, reads fine to me, I can live with it as is, thanks. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, credit where it's due -- to Tomticker, for the latest iterations. My comments, both stylistic and substantive:

• style: "which would have predated" ---> could simplify and say: "which predates"
• substance: I still prefer "written as an eyewitness account". "Uncredited/unidentified eyewitness" does presume that a reporter actually saw such events, while "written as" describes the style of the newspaper article without presuming there actually was an eyewitness. But if Carroll is ok with it, I won't push the issue.
• style: "widely reported, being reprinted" -- Of course, some of it was copied, but it's not quite accurate to suggest that it was fully reprinted in all the other newspapers that carried the story. I'd prefer something like: "...information from the article was widely repeated and copied...."
• "that classified aviation as a commercial industry in 1904" -- I'd prefer to simply say: "and a 1904 book about industrial progress."
• (This also addresses a point Carroll made.) I've tried to establish a chronology that: Stella wrote the article and book in the 1930s, and then spirited debate arose in the years afterward. And later, research in the 60s and 70s led to further examination, etc. So it should be: 1930s article/book-->spirited debate-->later research in 60s/70s.
• style and substance: The text about "historians" seems to be spread around somewhat, rather than focused. The sentence/information beginning, "The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims..." should be combined with the paragraph that starts with, "There continues to be a sharp difference..."
• substance: The Smithsonian agreement refers to the airplane, not the brothers (I wrote it that way, so it's my mistake).
• substance: It would be helpful to offer some indication of Jane's importance as an aviation publication.
• The Jane's sentence says, "which has stirred up debate". I'd put it: "which has reignited debate".
• "Connecticut has since passed legislation..." Has Connecticut actually passed new GW legislation subsequent to the Jane's editorial, or does this refer to the old proclamation?

DonFB (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the last. Would it be simpler though not less accurate to say that the state of Connecticut officially recognises Whitehead. Legislation sounds wrong, implies that a law or statute has been passed (it may have been) with the implication (to me) that its binding on the citizens with penalty if transgressed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.

In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Decades of spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.

The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.

In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine which has reignited debate over who flew first. This has led the Connecticut General Assembly to adopt new legislation stating that Whitehead flew in 1901."Tomticker5 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Much improved, again, good points, DonFB and GraemeLeggett, and thanks to Tomticker5. I can see only one thing I would change now, "a regarded annual aviation publication" to "a regarded annual aviation industry publication" Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines of various types between 1897 and 1915. Controversy has surrounded press reports, eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903.

In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated that Whitehead had made a powered flight in Connecticut in August that year. In the months that followed, information from the article was widely reprinted and copied and appeared in several dozen newspapers throughout the U.S. and in Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a book about industrial progress in 1904. Whitehead later worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice by 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.

In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had indeed made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Spirited debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered flight is known to exist. A modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown near-replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines.

The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers in 1948 in order to display the Wright Flyer plane. There continues to be a sharp difference of findings among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished. Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew.

In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, a regarded annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first. The Connecticut General Assembly has recently passed legislation, stating their annual Powered Flight Day will now be in honor of the first powered flight by Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers."Tomticker5 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

"Change: "....Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903." TO: "...Whitehead's own claims that he flew powered airplanes several times in 1901 and 1902, predating flights by the Wright Brothers in 1903."

"In 1901, a newspaper article, written as an eyewitness account, stated..." Remove all 3 commas.

Make it: "...a 1904 book about industrial progress."

Make it: "to renew examination of the claims" (Cut "the" before examination.)

Suggest: "....emphasize that the Smithsonian made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers requiring the Institution to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."

"...a sharp difference of opinion" sounds more natural than "difference of findings." I think your text ('findings') wants to indicate that there is a difference in research, not merely opinion. The issue might be handled by simply saying: "There continues to be a sharp difference among aviation historians as to what Whitehead accomplished."

Change: "Some historians insist that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine in 1901, while others believe none of his machines ever flew." TO: "Some historians insist that in 1901 he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his powered machines ever flew."

Suggest: "...a highly-regarded annual aviation industry publication", or: "the leading annual aviation industry publication..."

"has recently passed legislation, stating..." Remove the comma after 'legislation'.

Regarding: "...in honor of the first powered flight by Gustave Whitehead..." What does the legislation/resolution actually say? Does it literally say "first powered flight by Gustave Whitehead"? Or does it imply such, without unequivocally saying so? Does it mention the Wright brothers?

“Eyewitness accounts” in the first paragraph, and “statements from eyewitnesses” in the third paragraph should be changed to “alleged eyewitness accounts” and “statements from alleged eyewitnesses” or something similar.

To say that Whitehead built flying machines in the first paragraph might give the reader the impression that whitehead built machines that flew under their own power, when that is a significant point of contention.

Is there a reliable source that says that “he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines”?

“near-replicas” seems to be suggesting that their contraptions were significantly similar to whiteheads, when some might argue that modern engines make them significantly different from whiteheads.

Calling Jane’s “a regarded annual aviation industry publication” seems intensely bias. Many would argue that their recent endorsement of Whitehead has denigrated them to being a “trashy gossip rag” or a “purveyor of sensationalist bullshit”. Why not just say that “In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine, which has reignited debate over who flew first.”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we're making some progress and the changes and refinements suggested are very good, including the ones from our unsigned editor in or near Toledo, Ohio. Here are my responses to some of the recently posted comments

1) Jane's - I agree that the qualifiers for Jane's should be deleted, merely stating the title "the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft" is maybe sufficient for the article's Intro. However, I think that we need to alert our readers that "Jane's" is not an historical publication but a commercial industry publication, as I've mentioned previously. That can come later in the article, perhaps, or, as I would rather, at the first mention of "Jane's." Also, quite a number of other people built and flew heavier-than-air machines prior to 1901 (LeBris, JJ Montgomery, Herring, Chanute, even Cayley - all gliders but all heavier-than-air) so the distinction has to be "powered." It's also true, but we needn't get into this level of detail, that a glider (and a kite) is powered, by one or two or both, external sources of energy - gravity and wind - so the true distinction is that the power source was carried about the machine. But as I say, we needn't drill down to that level of commentary for this article.

2) the replica's - we have "modern engines and modern propellers" which is a clear statement that the so-called replicas are very different from No. 21.

3) as for "well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines", Octave Chanute listed GW among those that the Wrights might contact about lightweight engines, which qualifies GW in my view for being at a minimum a "known designer and builder of lightweight engines" - I could live with deleting "well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines" and stating "known designer and builder of lightweight engines"

4) "flying machines" - I had suggested using "machines meant to fly" but at least one editor believed that was a biased statement whereas I see it as a neutral statement. I believe, as I've said before, we should distinguish between "flying machines" and use of anachronistic terms such as "airplanes" and "aircraft" both of which carry a clear meaning that they are capable of flight. Use of the period term "flying machine" is free from that implication. Henson's & Stringfellow's device was a "flying machine," the Ader Eole was a "flying machine" and not an aircraft and not an airplane. So I would prefer to see the anachronisms "aircraft" and "airplane" not used in this article.

5) eyewitness accounts - the 14 August 1901 supposed "eyewitnesses" are troublesome because, of course, James Dickie, named as an "eyewitness" in the Sunday Herald article swore in his statement that he was not present and did not ever witness Whitehead in flight. One of the two other named "eyewitnesses" was "Andrew Cellie" who never gave a statement. GW was the third named "eyewitness" and his statement - quoted in the Sunday Herald article - is of very limited reliability as a source. The anonymous reporter/writer of the article was an alleged eyewitness, but it is an difficult thing to accept an anonymous statement of any kind. As for the 63 or so statements that Randolph and O'Dwyer collected (of which Randolph and O'Dwyer made about 17 public) they range greatly in value, substance and credibility. I am most comfortable adding a qualifier such as "alleged" or "supposed" to each use of the word "eyewitness." Otherwise we're lending credence to them and therefore losing neutrality.

6) the "legislation" - we should see what the "legislation" (probably a resolution, GraemeLeggett is correct about "legislation" being the wrong word to use) actually states and go from there. There has been new "legislation" under consideration, prompted by John Brown's supposed (and in my mind dubious - I know it's an opinion, but it's mine) "discovery" of a photo of GW in flight aboard No.21

7) the Agreement - "made an agreement with heirs of the Wright brothers requiring the Institution to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer" is a misstatement, the Agreement is between the Estate of Orville Wright and the United States of America - read it as you'll see that's the case - not between the "heirs of the Wright brothers" and the Smithsonian - yet it is signed by the then Secretary of the Smithsonian on behalf of the United States of America. Also, reading the Agreement you can see that the Estate of Orville wright was "authorized and ordered" to enter into the Agreement by the Montgomery, Ohio, Probate Court. The image of the Agreement used in the GW article is a clipped version of the entire agreement and as such should not be there. A pdf of the entire Agreement should be linked, not a clipped trimmed image. I believe that to accurately state what and by whom and under what circumstances the Agreement was signed requires much more space than we should devote to it in this article about GW. I suggested we expand on it in the History By Contract article and link to the GW article - I still think that would probably be the best thing to do.

We're getting there, just a little more to rework. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to a story about the action that the Connecticut House and Senate took regarding GW http://www.ctmirror.org/story/bipartisan-support-whitehead-state-polka-and-second-state-song Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The word of Octave Chanute seems like a good source. If he thought Whitehead built lightweight engines, then I see no reason to doubt that Whitehead had a reputation for being able to build lightweight engines. However, the claim that Whitehead was “well known” seems very difficult to substantiate.

I don’t see what’s wrong with "machines meant to fly". I understand the use of the expression “flying machine” in the context of early aviation, but the reader may not. I also don’t see the value of using a period expression when "machines meant to fly" could communicate the concept with less bias.

While the qualifier "modern engines and modern propellers" does express the idea that the machines are not perfect replicas of Whitehead’s contraption, it is the expression “near-replica” which seems inappropriate. If I strapped a cotton gin onto a Saturn V rocket no reasonable person would argue that a “near-replica” of a cotton gin was capable of space flight. The engines and propellers make all the difference in the world. “Machine which might superficially resemble Whitehead no. 21 to the untrained eye but is actually powered by a much lighter and more powerful engine and more efficient propellers” seems like a much more accurate expression, but it isn’t very eloquent, and will probably attract objections. Perhaps a Whitehead supporter could propose a compromise which is truthful yet less objectionable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't directly comment on the phrase "machines meant to fly" when it came up in discussion, but I guess I should now for the record. Here's how it reads to me: "machines meant to fly--but didn't". Fwiw, I'm glad to see "flying machines" restored, currently, to the Suggested Intro. I understand that use of the word "flying" might lead some readers to assume they did. On the other hand, when referring to that very early period of aviation, it is common, as Carroll has pointed out, to refer to "flying machine," whether it flew or not. The phrase denotes a concept, as much as an actual operating "aircraft". DonFB (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts, mostly for mutal enlightenment, not really debating contentious points....

Carroll said: "I think that we need to alert our readers that Jane's is not an historical publication but a commercial industry publication..." I heartily agree. That's part of the reason I was very pleased at the qualifier that replaced "authoritative" for the first mention of Jane's. If used, a qualifier should also make clear that Jane's is highly-regarded/respected/world-class/what-have-you.

Regarding "eyewitnesses": First of all, we must keep in mind that there are (at least) two sets of witnesses: those from 14 Aug 1901, and those from other unspecified dates, as stated in the affidavits. We should be careful, where appropriate, to identify which group we're referring to when writing about "witnesses" in the article. To cut to the chase: I would not object to using "alleged" or "supposed" to describe witnesses from either group. Neither am I certain that's the correct thing to do. Those words do cast doubt on the veracity of the witnesses. In other words, our article is taking the position that these people may not be telling the truth, or may be making inaccurate statements--all of which could be true, but I don't know that our article has really suppported that idea with any references; our article just seems to assume--a priori--that anyone described as a "witness" is unreliable. That assumption would appear to conflict with the idea of neutrality.

The Agreement: As Carroll has pointed out, the phrasing we're using (which I've contributed to) is not technically correct. I see no impediment to revising the text so it says (something like): "....Whitehead supporters emphasize that an agreement between the U.S. and the estate of Orville Wright requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."

Thoughts? DonFB (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The various witnesses can be further divided into those who said Whitehead flew and those who said he did not. In this case the "witnesses" did not witness a flight but they were close to Whitehead in various ways. When we tell the reader this or that detail is supported by witnesses we should also say that it is disputed by other witnesses. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision #4

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.

In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a well-known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.

In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.

The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters emphasize the sole reason is a 1948 contract that exists between the Estate of Orville Wright and the U.S. signed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian that permits the Smithsonian to display the Wright Flyer as long as they do not give credit to anyone else for being first in flight.

There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.

In 2013, the 100th anniversary edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903."Tomticker5 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A suggested intro - part one and a half

Comments on Tomticker's #4 revision, above:

"...he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines meant to power them between 1897 and 1915." Problem here is that "engines meant to power them" seems to refer to both gliders and flying machines. I would favor "aircraft engines" (or if we want to be a little more detail-oriented, it could say, "aircraft and other types of engines."

"Controversy surrounds published accounts" - drop "the" before published.

"...and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers." Tom, don't you think it should say, "claims that he made several powered flights..."? (but not bolded in the article)

"Whitehead worked for sponsors" --> "Later, Whitehead worked...", or "Whitehead also worked..."

How about:

"The Smithsonian Institution has repeatedly dismissed claims that Whitehead flew. Whitehead supporters believe the Smithsonian cannot be neutral because of an agreement between the U.S. government and the estate of Orville Wright which requires the Smithsonian to recognize only the 1903 Wright Flyer as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."

"...Jane's All the World's Aircraft, the best-known annual aviation industry publication...."

"...honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901..." I still need to know if this is a direct quote from the "legislation" or an editorial interpretation. DonFB (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for "best-known"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A Suggested Intro - Part 2

1) Eyewitnesses - Yes, there are two groups - good point. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the "eyewitnesses" in many instances are not to blame for any doubt cast on their statements - rather the people who typed and in many instances wrote the statements and even revised, added to and altered what was said (I know this is OR World I am in at the moment) who are the source of the doubt. That and the decades that lapsed between some event (whatever happened) and their statements. Eyewitness testimony is understood to be not best evidence in a courtroom - it isn't fully trustworthy. What would a court think of statements made 30 and 40 and 50 years after an event, when many of the "eyewitnesses" were children or young adults. To simply refer to them as unqualified "eyewitnesses" is to give them credibility, just as saying "purported eyewitnesses" casts doubt. We need to work on this point more, it's clear, if we're to present them in a neutral light.

2) change "....Whitehead supporters emphasize that an agreement between the U.S. and the estate of Orville Wright requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight." to ""....Whitehead supporters point to an agreement between the U.S.A. (signed by the Smithsonian's Secretary) and the Estate of Orville Wright (signed by the two executors) requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer, and no other aircraft, as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight."

3) Jane's - what is highly regarded about "Jane's' is its aviation industry content, not its editorial or historical opinion or slant. Indeed, the editorial statement made with respect to GW has in the view of many tarnished that very reputation. I think it is probably best (and most accurate) that the Intro state "The Editor of 'Jane's All The World's Aircraft' believes that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight." Then in the body of the article, perhaps, more can be made of this. But the editor is just that - an editor expressing a person opinion, not an historical fact. John Brown has a personal relationship with that editor (this is beyond the scope but I think it should be mentioned) so this was not some neutral determination by "Jane's" editor.

4) near-replicas - perhaps "...modern versions of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers..."

5) other things - I am back to supporting my "machines meant to fly" and "Whitehead was a known builder of lightweight engines." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision #6

"Gustave Albin Whitehead, born Gustav Albin Weisskopf, (1 January 1874 – 10 October 1927) was an aviation pioneer who emigrated from Germany to the United States where he designed and built gliders, flying machines and engines between 1897 and 1915. Controversy surrounds the published eyewitness accounts and Whitehead's own claims that he flew several times in 1901 and 1902, which predate the first flights by the Wright Brothers.

In 1901, a newspaper article stated that Whitehead made a powered flight in Connecticut in August of that year. In the months that followed, details from this article were widely reprinted in newspapers across the U.S. and Europe. Whitehead's aircraft designs and experiments also attracted notice in Scientific American magazine and a 1904 book about industrial progress. Whitehead worked for sponsors who hired him to build aircraft of their own design, although none flew, and he became a known designer and builder of lightweight engines. He fell out of public notice around 1915 and died in relative obscurity in 1927.

In 1937, a magazine article and book asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902. The book included statements from eyewitnesses who said they had seen various Whitehead flights decades earlier. Debate arose among scholars, researchers and aviation enthusiasts over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight. Research in the 1960s and 70s, and books written supporting his claim of successful flight in 1966 and 1978, led mainstream historians to renew the examination of the claims.

No photograph conclusively showing Whitehead making a powered controlled flight is known to exist. However, a modern researcher claims to have identified one, which is seen as an image within a much larger vintage photograph of an aviation exhibit hall. Previous research reported that in-flight photographs may have existed, but none have ever been located. Researchers have studied Whitehead's aircraft designs to see if they could have flown. Since the 1980s, enthusiasts in the U.S. and Germany have built and flown replicas of Whitehead's flying machines.

The Smithsonian Institution has dismissed claims that Whitehead flew while Whitehead supporters point to a 1948 agreement between the U.S.A. (signed by the Smithsonian's Secretary) and the Estate of Orville Wright (signed by the two executors) that requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer and no other aircraft as first to make a manned, powered, controlled flight.

There is a sharp difference of opinion among aviation historians as to what exactly Whitehead accomplished during his aviation career. Some historians believe that he was the first human to fly in a powered flying machine, while others believe none of his machines ever flew and he contributed nothing to aviation.

In 2013, the Editor of Jane's All the World's Aircraft, an annual aviation industry publication, credited Whitehead as the first man to build and fly a heavier-than-air flying machine. This statement has reignited the debate over who flew first. Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has moved to honor the first powered flight made by Gustave Whitehead in 1901 for their annual Powered Flight Day rather than the Wright Brothers flight in 1903."

WP:MOS condones the use of “plain English” in its second paragraph. “Flying Machine” is an archaic expression which has the potential to mislead. “Machines meant to fly” or “machines intended to fly” are much more descriptive, accurate, and in line with the manual of style.

How about “modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers”? The manufacturers of such craft are, after all, interpreting Whitehead No.21 from pictures and written descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.163.157 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom, et al -

I think perhaps we--as a group--need to work on some of the issues one item at a time, and try to reach consensus on each, and then move on to the next one. It's getting a bit inefficient to try to reach some kind of agreement on the whole thing over and over. A few issues that come to mind: our description/qualification of "witnesses"; the issue of "flying machine/meant to fly"; the wording of the Smithsonian agreement; the wording of the new Connecticut "legislation". Shall we try to hammer those out one at a time? DonFB (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just another quick thought: we surely do not need to specify who signed the Agreement in the introduction. That kind of detail is what clogged up the intro previously. If we say it all--and I don't know that it's even necessary--let's save it for the body of the article...please? DonFB (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if I left the impression in what I said that I would prefer to pump a lot of detail into the Intro - I wouldn't, there should be some slight mention of matters in the Intro then detail in the body of the article. The details of the Agreement can be put into the HBC article (it makes sense for it to be there) as I suggested, with a cogent and short mention in the GW article.

OK, let's take the items one by one. Can we agree to move the details of the Agreement into the HBC article ? Language for the Intro might be "Whitehead supporters focus on an agreement with Orville Wright Estate's which prevents the Smithsonian from recognizing that Whitehead might have been the first person to fly aboard a powered, controlled, machine. A Whitehead supporter discusses this at length in History By Contract." (with a link to the HBC article) Comments ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I like how 68.74.163.157 has worded the "Jane's" paragraph - and I still would prefer "machines meant to fly"in the appropriate spot, and I also like “modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Specific items

In making these comments, I'm looking at the actual article, rather than recent versions of the Suggested Introduction.

The first time "witness" or "eyewitness" appears is in the Introduction, in the description of the Herald article. Competing ideas have included "written as an eyewitness account" and "written by a claimed eyewitness" (complete phrase may not be exact, but 'claimed eyewitness' is the relevant part). I support "written as an eyewitness account..."

Next, we find "witness" a bit later in the Intro. It says: "...included statements from witnesses who said they had seen..." We could revise that to say: "...statements from people who said they had witnessed...", or "....from people who said they had seen...." I can live with either one.

I'm not sure why we're struggling so much with the Smithsonian agreement text. I think we've resolved the issue of describing the parties correctly (U.S. govt and estate of Orville Wright). As I said elsewhere, I really don't think we should clutter it up with the titles/names/IDs of the signers. I'll confess I like my most recent version, which is in the "Suggested Intro - part one and a half" section. What do editors want to emphasize in this text? The requirement imposed on Smithsonian? The prohibition imposed on Smithsonian? The threatened loss of Flyer for non-compliance? This one really shouldn't be that difficult.

Jane's -- I like Carroll's latest idea on this, in which he suggests: "The Editor of Jane's All The World's Aircraft believes that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight." I'm willing to leave it at that, though I think we should at least give a quick description/qualification of Jane's in the body of the article.

Replica -- My idea: drop the word "near". Just call it a "replica" Or call it a "repoduction" (I forget the distinction; someone can advise). Here's the text I'd be happy to support: "...replicas of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines." Simple. Accurate.

"Flying machine/meant to fly" -- Oy vey. "Flying machine" is the "anachronistic" term, not "aircraft". Again, though, I agree with Carroll that "flying machine" is the term that was commonly used during that period, and is still the term used when describing that era--except in this case, it seems. I disagree, however. I think we can use the term, because one sentence later, maybe two, our article makes it very clear that there's lots of controversy over whether Whitehead's powered flying machines actually flew. If any readers think, "Oh, it's a 'flying machine', it flew," they will be disabused of that idea in the very next sentence, or at most, the one after it. I think we can take that risk. If the reader doesn't almost immediately understand that there's deep disagreement whether these flying machines flew...well, maybe we can put some kind of an email link in a footnote they can click, and we can answer them and say, "Pay attention! In the second sentence, the article says there's great disagreement whether he made any powered flight!"

I think that covers some of the most important burning issues in the Introduction. (Covers, doesn't solve, so let's discuss.)

Anything else? DonFB (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB, I support your "written as an eyewitness account..."; your "....from people who said they had seen...."; The Agreement - I suggested we focus on the terms briefly and the Estate/USA being the parties I like our anonymous editor's version (with slight changes) "The Smithsonian Institution dismissed claims Whitehead flew, while Whitehead supporters counter that a 1948 agreement between the U.S.A. (signed by the Smithsonian's Secretary) and the Estate of Orville Wright requires the Smithsonian to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer and no other machine as first to make a manned, powered," controlled flight."; I'm still onboard with "The Editor of Jane's All The World's Aircraft believes that Whitehead made the first manned, powered, controlled flight."; also "...reproductions of Whitehead's 1901 flying machine, using modern propellers and engines."; thanks, yes, please let's use "flying machine" - explanations already exhaustively given Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Smithsonian text by anonymous should say: "The Smithsonian Insitution has repeatedly dismissed claims that Whitehead made powered flights.<full stop> Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian's neutrality is compromised by an agreement between the U.S. government and the estate of Orville Wright requiring the Institution to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer as the first aircraft to make a manned, powered, controlled flight." We should point out that Smithsonian has repeatedly dismissed claims. Anonymous' version makes it sound like it happened once. The word "powered" should be included. The parenthetical bit about Smithsn Secy signing the agreement does no real harm, but annoys me, because it slows down the read a little and raises a question in the reader's mind that need not be raised at this point. I also think an Introduction should not have parenthetical statements. Save parenthetical details for the Body. I wouldn't say, "U.S.A." I would say "U.S. government."

I'm not clear what "details" of the Agreement you want to move into the HBC article. We have one sentence about it in the Introduction. And of course, there is more detail in the Body.

Sorry to pick on Anonymous, but “Modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers”? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. It's a replica. People instantly understand what that means. A phrase like "modern interpretations" belongs in an article about dancing or art. And repeating the word "modern" three times in the same sentence? Please. It was anonymous who made the point to me earlier about using "plain English". This doesn't pass the test. DonFB (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Defining terms... a "reproduction" is a copy of something made by people who did not make the original item. A "replica" is a copy something made by the company or group of people who made the original, usually using the same methods and material and techniques... so the modern No. 21's are "Reproductions" - how's the following - "Reproductions of Whitehead's No. 21 have been made, powered by modern engines and modern propellers."

There is some language (brief) related to the terms which could/should be included in the section that deals with The Agreement or (my preference) in the HBC article. Also, I have a .pdf of The Agreement, which would be useful (not sure about protocol for using a .pdf which an editor has) - we should remove that clipped version image that's in the GW article. The term "U.S. government" is fine as far as I am concerned but just to be clear, the Agreement states "U.S.A."... so here's another crack at it "The Smithsonian Institution has repeatedly examined and dismissed claims that Whitehead made powered flights before the Wrights. Whitehead supporters emphasize that the Smithsonian's neutrality was compromised by a 1948 agreement between the U.S. government and the estate of Orville Wright requiring the Institution to recognize the 1903 Wright Flyer as the first aircraft to make a manned, powered, controlled flight." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As of this writing, the resolution establishing "Powered Flight Day" to honor GW in Connecticut has passed both houses of the Conn. legislature and is awaiting the Gov.'s signature. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it (Smithsonian text). We should use it. In your "Reproduction" text, the word "modern" need not be repeated; it will be clear that a single use applies to both engines and propellers. And, not a huge deal, but it might be better to preserve and include the language that 'researchers studied GW's no. 21 to see if could have flown'.

Regarding your PDF...I recommend uploading it to Wikipedia. It's presumably public domain as a government document. The excerpt currently on Wikipedia is shown as public domain for the wrong (and impossible) reason--as published before 1923. I'm almost sure the PDF will need first to be converted to an image file (jpg/jpeg, gif, or png). I don't believe Wikipedia accepts PDF uploads, generally speaking. The current excerpt is jpeg. After upload, it would be available for insert into any article, just as photos, diagrams, etc currently are. Considerations: The full "contract" may be too long to show up usefully in an article (I have a paper copy buried in my files). As is now the case, it may be appropriate to crop it and show a portion. Not to get too tedious about it, but possibly the full version and a cropped version could be uploaded. Uploading the full version to Wikipedia would make it far more available to the internet (the world, that is) than previously. The current cropped excerpt in the article is actually useful, however, because it shows the key sub paragraph "d" (but it could be more appropriately captioned, indicating it's an excerpt). I can certainly understand wanting the whole thing to be available, and it should be. DonFB (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB,

“TIGHAR Guide to Aviation Historic Preservation Terminology” defines a replica as “an object constructed to represent, to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, an object which existed at some previous time” and it defines a reproduction as “A copy of an existing object”. The words reproduction and replica in this sense are both HIGHLY IRRELEVANT because they are written in a guide to industry jargon and not in plain English. In plain English the words replica and reproduction both mean “a copy of”. It is, in fact, impossible to reproduce Whitehead No. 21 because the structure of its engine is not known.

“Modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered by modern engines turning modern propellers” is plain English. Every word in that sentence is comprehensible to a modern English speaker. It may not be eloquent and it may not roll of the tongue, but it is plain English. Your attempt to suggest that plain English means using sentences that are easy to say is flatly “ridiculous”.

The devil is in the details dude. Whitehead No.21 with a modern engine and propellers is like a Sopwith Camel with a jet engine; it simply isn’t the same thing. 7th graders should not read this article and come away thinking that “Someone built Whitehead's plane and it really works!” because that would be wrong. So we should not mislead anyone with words like “replica” or “reproduction” or any other word that means “copy” because no one has copied Whitehead No. 21, they have merely made things that superficially resemble it. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"a greater or lesser degree of accuracy" is fine with me as a good working definition of replica. Or use "reproduction"; I'm fine with that too. If 7th graders read the article and fail to grasp the significance of "modern engines and propellers," and blurt out in class that "GW's plane really works," I'm confident their teacher will help them understand the significance of the words. On the other hand, if they read in Wikipedia, "Modern interpretations of Whitehead's No. 21 machine," they will more than likely ask their teacher, "What the hell (heck) does that mean? DonFB (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can certainly accept TIGHAR's view on replicas and reproductions - but it is at variance with the standard dictionary definition, under which the recently built No. 21's would be reproductions, not replicas. Maybe we should steer clear of either word since there is apt to be confusion using either one. How is this... "Modern versions of Whitehead's No. 21 machine, powered using modern engines and propellers." I believe we have agreement on laying the "Jane's" recognition of GW at the Editor's feet, where it ought to be, am I correct ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not explaining the “pro-Wright” position adequately. To the “Pro-Wright” camp these machines built by enthusiasts are not, in any way, reproductions. They are not even “good faith attempts” to build something like Whitehead No. 21. They are “bad faith attempts” to deceive people into believing that the real Whitehead No. 21 could have flown. Their modern machines with modern engines would be vastly more powerful than anything whitehead ever could have come up with. If these enthusiasts were seriously trying to replicate and not deceive then they would have built their machines with archaic acetylene engines made with archaic metallurgy. Nearly any one of the early flying machines could have flown if equipped with a modern engine.

In other words the power of Whitehead’s engine is so central to the debate that a different engine makes any attempted “reproduction” utterly valueless as an argument for Whitehead’s success. Calling it a reproduction or a replica makes it seem like it’s similar to Whitehead No. 21 when, in fact, it is utterly different in every way that matters to the controversy discussed in this article.

So how about this: “By equipping them with modern engines and propellers, interpretations of Whitehead’s No. 21 machine have been flown by enthusiasts since the 1980s.” That way we explain that the machines are altered significantly from the real Whitehead No. 21 in advance. It also seems pretty clear in that sentence that “interpretations” means something that a Whitehead enthusiast built. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You explained the position very well, and it is a problem which all such machines have, even when being as precise and cafreful as possible about using period techniques, materials, and design. I've noted a long series of differences in the modern "No. 21"'s - one noted aviator who flew in one told me it was the scariest thing he'd ever done and he wouldn't be doing it again. This was after putting the machine through modern aeronautical analysis and balancing and all the rest. That version used (as they all have thus far) a modern (Continental) engine and modern toothpick props. Also, despite several references to the use of silk to cover "No. 21"'s wings, they were covered in muslin - was the muslin sealed ? If it weren't then the seepage of air and the subsequent loss of lift could be a problem. Using modern fabrics as covering would also add to the argument that these modern versions are irrelevant to whether or not GW flew. Of course, most people see a machine that looks like the "No. 21" in the air, with a pilot aboard, whether it is is free flight or under tow, and think - "Oh, that old machine could fly." I don't see how, though, we can remain neutral and state that such machines are meant to deceive people into believing the original "No. 21" could fly. I've looked for a critical analysis of the modern versions, to cite, but cannot locate anything worth citing. That might be our best route, finding a statement that makes the case then citing it. I think at this point I prefer "Modern versions with modern materials, engines and propellers..." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see that we’re in agreement about the Pro-Wright stance on the validity of Whitehead No. 21 “reproductions”.

I was not attempting to propose that we call the modern machines “fraudulent” or “deliberate attempts to deceive” in the introduction. I think that any neutral compromise between the Wright and Whitehead camps cannot suggest to the reader that the “reproductions” are significantly similar to Whitehead’s machine in any meaningful way in the introduction as it pre-disposes them to view Whitehead as a man whose technology has already been proven, when that is actually the very heart of the debate. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarity in purpose

I've inserted the newly revised introduction. However, it's become abundantly clear to me, over these last few years, that even if it were possible for the leading mainstream aviation historians to go back in time to that August morning in Connecticut in 1901 and see GW for themselves. They would not be able to agree on exactly how to describe whatever GW did, failed to do or what to even call his machine.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That is hardly surprising, really, the "eyewitnesses" and the "witnesses" and those who gave "sworn statements" could not agree, either. GW's reported quotes about what he did don't conform exactly to the reporter's article. You do bring up - indirectly - a favorite point of mine... that what people then believed was flying is not what we today accept as flying. If someone managed to hop off the ground while underway, say for 10-15 feet, a foot or two above the ground, skimming along in ground effect - people then would have likely believed they had just witnessed a "flight." People with today's understanding of "flight" would not think so. It's a point I made at length in my 2004 article about GW. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a moderate amount of agreement among the historical "witnesses" about what they said he did: GW himself, presumed Herald author, Harworth, and maybe Pruckner. They all seem to agree that his experiment was much more than a hop or jump or what we'd call ground-effect flight. But without sufficient GW follow-through or any other credible documentation of that or subsequent "flights"....history still leans against him. If modern-day time-traveling mainstream scientists saw a 1.5 mile flight up to 50 high, I think they would come back with largely consistent reports. I doubt, at the least, that they'd call it a mere hop or jump. The more problematic issue for the GW case is that there is very little, if any, other supporting evidence for the events of 14 Aug 1901. DonFB (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tweaks to intro 'agreement' text

I made the changes because the existing text seemed to imply that the U.S. government forced the Smithsonian into the agreement. If a source says that's actually true, we can restore the previous text. I think this new wording more fairly indicates that the Smithsonian acted willingly without pressure from the full weight of the Federal government (although I wouldn't doubt there was pressure from the Wright estate). DonFB (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders about any pressure from the federal government being behind this, here is some of the language found in the Agreement: "WHEREAS the Probate Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, having jurisdiction over the administration of said estate, after full hearing in a proceeding to which all persons and institutions having any interest under the will of Orville Wright were parties and had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court, has officially found that the known wishes of Orville Wright will be carried out and the highest and best interest of the state will be served by recognizing the public interest and has accordingly authorized and directed the Vendors to enter into this Agreement,..." I'm not suggesting that this be included in the text, although it does make a good case for having the full Agreement available - ideally through a link - for those who have such an interest in the details. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but, trying to translate that back into "plain English," it appears to say: "the county probate court found that Orville's wishes will be carried out and told the Wright family to make the agreement..." Is that close? DonFB (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Agreement states that the Montgomery County, Ohio, Probate Court "authorized and directed" the OW's estate to enter into the Agreement. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead was a U.S. citizen by 1908

Whitehead described as a "U.S. citizen" on U.S. Patent No. 881,837, issued MAR. 10, 1908.

Application filed December 20, 1905. Serial No. 292,614.

"To all whom it may concern: Be it known that I, Gustave Whitehead, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Bridgeport, in the county of Fairfield and State of Connecticut, have invented a new and Improved Aeroplane, of which the following is a full, clear, and exact description. The invention relates to aerial navigation, and its object is to provide a new and improved aeroplane arranged to readily maintain its equilibrium when in flight in the air, to prevent upsetting, shooting downward head foremost, and to sustain considerable weight." Tomticker5 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

On his Draft Registration card dated Sept. 12, 1918, GW listed himself as a "Native Born" citizen. He wasn't. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GW also once stated in a legal document that he was a citizen of Brazil. This would make him a "Native Born" US citizen, a citizen of Brazil a citizen of Germany, and a non-naturalized US resident, pretty much all at the same time. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, GW's U.S. Patent was issued by a U.S. Government Agency (Commerce) after years of scrutiny. Wright's patent was rejected at first, wasn't it? Didn't POTUS JFK once say; "Ich bin ein Berliner"? That didn't make him a German did it?Tomticker5 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My point, which I am certain you understand, is that GW stated conflicting things about his status as a resident in the US and about his citizenship. I'm not saying the conflicting things, GW did, and on legal documents. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have zero interest in arguing with anyone about GW's citizenship. However, I find these factoids highly interesting, and they deserve to be in the article, which, after all, is a biography. Conflicting documentation or statements about the man's citizenship are completely appropriate for inclusion in his biographical article. I would put the text in myself this very minute, but I don't know all the sources, or if they are all "reliable" and publically available. So I ask that the sources be provided (here on the Talk page would be a good place). The sources need not be online: anything published in a book, magazine, newspaper, monograph or what-have-you would be fine; or perhaps shown in a museum or other public collection. If the documentation is privately held...well, that won't work.

I further point out, if it's not already obvious, that these conflicting documents, apparently provided by GW himself, say something about the man's veracity. Readers can draw their own conclusions. I haven't settled on exactly how I'd phrase it, and I'm sure other editors will have ideas about that. But hopefully something neutral, like: "Whitehead, who was born in [I think Bavaria is technically correct, rather than "Germany"], provided conflicting documentation over the years about his citizenship. In a 1905 patent application, he said...etc, etc; on a 1918 Draft registration card, he listed himself...etc, etc; in another legal document he stated he was a citizen of Brazil." That seems to cover it. I suppose, conceivably (or not), that he may have actually changed his citizenship two or three times, although the "natural born U.S." comment certainly seems, uh, open to question, shall we say. The text could go in the "Early life and career" section, or possibly the "Later career" section. DonFB (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The material I referenced will be publicly available to be sourced in a little while. It's actually in the public arena now but I haven't found any references to it and don't believe its significance has been noted, yet. I should respect the line on OR - I know I slip from time and again. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Professor John B. Crane calls for Congressional hearing in 1937 over Wright Brothers first flight claim

In 1936 Crane researched GW flight claims and after further research and taking sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses in Bridgeport, reverses himself and states GW was first in flight. Then, in January 1937, he urged the U.S. Congress to hold hearings and investigate the matter over who should be given credit for being first in flight. Not quite sure how to insert this content into the introduction, but I believe it should be there to lead the 3rd paragraph on rediscovery. Wouldn't dare mention Harvard or his name in the intro, but maybe just say; "In 1937, a professor urged the U.S. Congress to investigate who was first in flight, a magazine article and a book all asserted that Whitehead had made powered flights in 1901-1902."Tomticker5 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Crane information is already covered in the body of the article. Inserting info about Crane in the Introduction will start to take us down the same road that previously resulted in a painfully overloaded Introduction. By implication, Crane is already covered in the Introduction's text when it talks about the years of 'debate among scholars, historians', etc. Further, Crane seems like a relatively minor figure in the debate, compared to people like Randolph and O'Dwyer, neither of whom is specifically mentioned in the intro. Randolph's article/book are mentioned in the Intro, because they're very important, and kicked off the whole debate. Our text on Crane should wait until the body of the article, otherwise we'll be setting the same precedent for re-stuffing the Introduction with every editor's pet thing--all, or virtually all of which are already covered in the article body. DonFB (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Crane reversed himself after doing research and speaking to witnesses and he even urged Congress in Jan 1937 to investigate the Wright Brothers claim of being first in flight and do the same thing that he did - give credit to GW for being America's first Aviator. The timeline appears to be shrinking from GW's last flight (a crash), his death and his period of "rediscovery". In time, I believe we'll see that there really wasn't a need for rediscovery if credit hadn't been taken away from him in the 1920s when the Wright Brothers began to solicit the U.S. Gov't to build a national monument/park to them. Adding the Crane content in the introduction also helps to establish the fact that some aviation historians have reversed themselves on GW, albeit, 75 years ago.Tomticker5 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want the introduction to explain that Crane reversed himself, that's going to inflate the Intro even more. It's the syndrome: editors want to put all their favorite stuff in the Introduction, even if it's already covered in the body. We need to exercise tight editorial judgement, or the Intro (like the article) will behave like a malignant growth. DonFB (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The relationship between Crane and Randolph, which was overflowing with suspicion, had as much to do with what transpired as with Crane 'seeing the light.' This aspect is a deep pit and not even close to being as understandable as it appears to be. I agree that Crane is relatively minor - his notoriety has as much to with his economics PhD and the Harvard association as anything. Crane's reversal is worth mentioning, although his reasons are not as obvious as some people believe. Crane's reversal is interesting to pose against James Dickie's steadfast statements that he never saw GW fly, doubted that he ever did, and wasn't present on 14 August 1901 as was reported, and did not know "eyewitness" "Andrew Cellie."

As for this comment "the Wright Brothers began to solicit the U.S. Gov't to build a national monument/park to them" - where to begin, perhaps by pointing out that Wilbur Wright died May 30, 1912, so he could hardly have been soliciting anyone or anything.

What did GW do - in aviation - after the Burridge "helicopter" failure ? That was in mid-1911. S. Randolph began her research early in 1934, so that was gap of 23 years. Have you read GW's obituaries ? The obit in the Bridgeport Telegram of 13 Oct 1927 says the following ""Gustave Whitehead, a well-known resident of Bridgeport, died at his home, 69 Alvin street, Monday evening. Besides his wife he is survived by one son, Charles, and three daughters, Mrs. J. W. C. Rennison, Mrs. C. O. Baker and Miss Nellie Whitehead. Mr. Whitehead was a member of the International Bible Students association. Funeral services were held yesterday morning at Lakeview cemetery at 10:30 o'clock. A member of the Bible Students association officiated." Not a single mention of his aviation activities. Therefore, what "credit" was taken from him ? There is a swirl of repeated accusations involved in GW's life and work, much of which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you consider the newspaper's coverage of GW's death accurate and reliable, but not their coverage documenting his flights.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB added the following statement recently to the introduction which apparently isn't completely accurate as explained in the body of the article. "The book and article triggered debate in the 1930s and '40s among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and Orville Wright over the question of whether Whitehead had preceded the Wright brothers in powered flight."

The article states that Crane reversed himself and urged Congress to investigate the matter and credit GW as America's first Aviator. Crane has a part in triggering this, it wasn't just the magazine and book, but I can see why you'd keep this out of the introduction.

DonFB has also made sure that Orville Wright and the Wright brothers names appear extensively in the introduction and then cautions me that editor's like to put their "favorite things" there. The Wright name appears 7 times in GW's introduction alone! Any chance I could trim that down to say twice? In the beginning to explain that GW flew on August 14, 1901 and the Wright Brothers flew in 1903. I think it's important to keep their name in the last sentence of the introduction too; "Recently, the Connecticut General Assembly has voted to honor Gustave Whitehead, rather than the Wright Brothers, on the state's annual Powered Flight Day".Tomticker5 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would mention Wilbur and Orville Wright in this article as minimally as possible. The article is NOT about the struggle to prove who flew first or who did fly first or whose machine was capable and whose wasn't or who was a more noble person or who was downtrodden and abused and ignored because of WWI or who kept notes and who didn't or who was more scientific in their approach or who built ludicrous machines and who built ornithopters and who didn't or who built better engines and who didn't... this article is about GW. Mentioning him brings in the Wrights, for certain, but the degree to which this article has been tortured by those who have struggled to "prove" GW flew first and to "prove" the Wrights didn't, might well violate the Geneva Accords (and no, I don't believe the Geneva Accords actually have been violated here, so no one needs to quote huge sections of them to me). Let's all try to keep the focus on GW and try to, whenever possible, delete the many primrose paths and comments and sidebar issues that lead us off the main road, which belongs to GW in his Wiki article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Several times, Tomtinker5, you've made assertions I have challenged, but you don't respond - you are under no obligation to respond, of course, but when I have asked for sources or explanations you have most often ignored my requests. That's not a very helpful approach - do yo see my point ? As for believing an obituary and disbelieving the Sunday Herald article... I don't believe everything I see in print, but I know some people do. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Carroll, I disagree. Whitehead’s primary significance is that he’s a pretender to the title of “first in flight”. Were it not for his followers fevered attempts at historical revisionism he would be much less significant, and possibly unworthy of a Wikipedia page. We cannot attempt to reduce the Whitehead article to simple biographical information and ignore the controversy. Whitehead’s jealous attack on the success of the Wright brother is a central issue here, and I don’t think we can minimize it.

That said, does anyone object if I remove the words “inevitable bias” from the last paragraph of the legacy section? “Inevitable bias” is an obvious value judgment. How about “Critics of the Wright proponents attack the Smithsonian’s neutrality by pointing to the Institution's ongoing contract with the heirs of Orville Wright”? 68.74.163.157 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

So fascinating and so much fun, these conversations...really. I agree with the statement immediately above, about removing "inevitable bias"--it needs to go.

I also very much agree with this statement: "Whitehead’s primary significance is that he’s a pretender to the title of 'first in flight'", although the word "pretender" is obviously perjorative, so I'd say he is significant because he and those who advocate for him have made him a persistent "claimant" to the title of "first".

And this is a great--and true--statement: "the degree to which this article has been tortured by those who have struggled to "prove" GW flew first and to "prove" the Wrights didn't, might well violate the Geneva Accords..." I haven't been counting the mentions of the Wrights, but I can tell you it was not I who inserted all the text about the Wright "visits" to Whitehead. I wonder, Tom, if you'd like to remove that whole business from the article.

And thanks to Carroll for debunking the absurd and utterly false remark that "the Wright Brothers began to solicit the U.S. Gov't to build a national monument/park to them." Really, this stuff boggles the mind.

Ya' know, I consider myself neutral, because I don't know for sure what Whitehead did. So I try to keep the text in the article from tilting too far in either direction in a way that seems biased. To true believers, doing that probably looks like bias.

I have some thoughts about the GW "citizenship" issue, so hop on over to that section and see my comments, which at this moment are still unwritten. DonFB (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree in my mind - I was not suggesting nor would I be pleased if the "First Flight" controversy were expunged from the GW article. My objection three years ago and still today was the degree to which this article is a struggle between editors who've taken one side of the other in the "First Flight" argument. If we're to toss all criteria away and ask who was first person to lift off the earth in a powered winged machine equipped with controls, that could be Clement Ader in his Eole, Oct. of 1890. If "in public" were added to the criteria, then it would be Alberto Santos-Dumont in his 14-bis, Nov. 1906. So, state my point in a more clesr way, we editors of this article on GW are not going to resolve, nor should we, nor should we even try to resolve the "First Flight" issue. That is not the purpose of the GW wiki article. Clearly the controversy is what keeps this alive in the public's mind and it must be addressed, but also it should be given proper weight, on that I think you and I could agree. I also see the Orville Wright estate/USGov/Smithsonian War as a sidebar. It should be addressed in the GW article, and developed and addressed someplace, but not given a full throated roaring exposé in the GW wiki article. We can probably agree on that, as well, at least I'd hope so.

“Critics of the Wright proponents attack the Smithsonian’s neutrality by pointing to the Institution's ongoing contract with the heirs of Orville Wright” - I see some problems with that formulation, how about this (brief, for the Intro) "Whitehead advocates say the agreement between Orville Wright's estate and the US government has made the Smithsonian biased." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: "inevitable bias" - please delete, yes. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would someone kindly point me to a source for GW ever claiming - himself - that he made "The First Flight in a ... etc. etc." I'm of the mind that he never did. He simply made what seem to me to be absurd claims of making flights over remarkable (for then) distances. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with the following: "we editors of this article on GW are not going to resolve, nor should we, nor should we even try to resolve the "First Flight" issue."

I think the Smithsonian/Contract text can likely be massaged further and reduced or at least cleaned up in a way that editors can agree upon.

Regarding the following text: "Critics of the Wright proponents attack the Smithsonian’s neutrality by pointing to the Institution's ongoing contract with the heirs of Orville Wright." I think it's probably redundant with material that precedes it elsewhere in the article body and it can be dispensed with. The idea it expresses, which first appears in the Introduction, should, however, be kept in the article body.

As long as I'm discussing that particular text, I'd like to express my disagreement with the suggested replacement text (which may not be needed anyway), because I think there is an important issue involved--not hugely important, but well worth mentioning. The replacement is: "Whitehead advocates say the agreement between Orville Wright's estate and the US government has made the Smithsonian biased." As I suggested previously, this kind of phrasing seems to simultaneously put the Smithsonian in the position of victim and relieve it of responsibility for participating in the agreement. Because the Smithsonian secretary signed the agreement, I think it's very appropriate to inform the readers of that fact (without needing to give his name or title--at least in the Introduction. The name and title can certainly be mentioned in the article body.) The use of "U.S. government" is something of a misdirection, even it it's technically accurate. It's fully accurate to say, "the Smithsonian signed the agreement," and that puts the responsibility where it belongs and eliminates what seems to me to be an irrelevant distraction of literally naming the U.S. government. I think it's a mere and not very important technical detail and can be omitted completely so the proper focus remains on the Smithsonian.

Regarding GW himself claiming to fly before the Wrights: I'm not aware of such a claim either. A long time ago, in a Wiki far away, I believe the introduction of this article did have phrasing which sounded like GW was, in fact, making such a claim. That's when I changed to wording to "predating". Looking at it now, though, I can see that the text can still be interpreted as him claiming to precede the brothers. So let's figure out a way to avoid doing that. DonFB (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I read in one of the newspaper articles on GW around 1904-1906, that he credits himself and a few others with successful flight up to that point in time. However, he admits that no one had designed and built the first "practical airplane" yet.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to pull back somewhat from what I said above about the Agreement. Considering the issue further, I think it's an overreach to say: "It's fully accurate to say, 'the Smithsonian signed the agreement'". With that in mind, I'd offer the following text for the article's Introduction: "...Whitehead supporters say the Smithsonian lost its credibility when its Secretary signed a 1948 agreement with the estate of Orville Wright requiring the Institution...etc. etc." So I'm also open to using the title of the head of the Smithsonian in the Introduction text. Perhaps most importantly, this text clearly assigns responsibility to the Smithsonian leadership for entering the Agreement with the Estate. DonFB (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Professor John J. Dvorak

In the fourth paragraph in the “Legacy” section it states that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion about Whitehead's competence. When he worked with Whitehead, Dvorak reportedly believed that Whitehead "was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work."”. In following the reference for that statement I find that it links to a website where a Whitehead supporter presents his opinion as fact and cites no reliable source to back up the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. "Was more advanced with the development of aircraft than other persons who were engaged in the work." Sounds like a quote from Dvorak, when it is actually just a quote from a Whitehead supporter. At the very least we cannot state (as a fact) that “This was a reversal of Dvorak's original opinion” because that’s just a claim, and not one that we have a reliable source to substantiate. Hypothetically we could say “this is alleged to be a reversal of Dvorak’s original opinion” or something similar, but I think the two sentences should be removed as they appear to violate WP:RS. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, a Dvorak statement about GW being "more advanced" was published in a newspaper or similar, or the statement may have been quoted from a newspaper by someone else. If you want to follow up on this, check the websites: John Brown, Gustave Whitehead's Flying Machines, and the Deepsky site. Links are available in the External Links section of the article. DonFB (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at this webpage:

http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/dvorak-praises-gw-oct-29-1904-john-j-dvorak-in-bridgeport-daily-standard-p-1/

DonFB (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well that’s interesting. The claim that Dvorak reversed his position traces back to a letter about a newspaper article which “cannot” be photocopied. “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” so he appears to be a real person. If no one objects I’m going to go ahead and change the reference so it links to http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/dvorak-praises-gw-oct-29-1904-john-j-dvorak-in-bridgeport-daily-standard-p-1/. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)