Talk:Gustave Whitehead

A simpler explanation of wikipedia rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I'm Doing

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

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

About DonFB's latest changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

O'Dwyer's collection

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

---

I've begun asking about the status of the O'Dwyer Archive and will report here. Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Determination

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

I share your view of bullying and the rest, Roger, but that doesn't answer my question - which was, what is the purpose you see in this Wiki article about G.W. ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The portait size

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

Purpose of this article

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

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

Air Enthusiast magazine wrote in January 1988:

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

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

The following statement, from the text above,

"My purpose is to establish the truth, as far as it can be established based on the evidence we can uncover."

conflicts irreconcilably with the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, as stated on the Wikipedia Verifiability page:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Roger, I think you missed this question (above, in the "James Dickie, more" section) and I wonder what your answer is...

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

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

Dickie witnessed about an airplane motor which discredited Whitehead because the motor was far too big and heavy for an airplane. It was later revealed that the motor he talked about was never intended for use in an airplane. When we add to that Dickie's phone interview, quoted above, I think we can safely decide that whatever Dickie said we should not believe it because he was obviously very angry at Whitehead and he used every opportunity to discredit him. Roger491127 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Do you believe Dickie was present during the 14 August 1901 events ? Carroll F. Gray 76.93.40.250 (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Also, about that quote from Air Enthusiast magazine with which you fully agree... I do not understand how anyone who values truth over falsehoods could ever agree that "The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test 'hop', witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut."

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

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

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

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

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

---

New portrait

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

---

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

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

Then with my size, result = 696 802 bytes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was a problem I thought I fixed when I made the background uniform, instead of the "falling apart, visually" which I thought was because the background was so dirty and patchy. Roger491127 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

My own opinion is that the image of G.W. in the larger size does not look appropriate. In addition, I see that the edges are becoming pixelated in that larger size and the image is degraded slightly. I will post an image myself and urge Roger to please stop this insane back and forth over this one photograph. If this sort of nonsense continues, I will do the rewrites and photo changes myself and then Roger can contend with that. The article is the important thing, not G.W.'s image. I support the size DonFB has established for G.W.'s image.

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

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

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

---

What is the Difference ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

"Verifiable" in Wikipedia does not mean what you said:

"what can be verified"

"Verifiable" in Wikipedia does not mean "verifiable information" or "verifiable facts" or "verifiable truth".

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Now you are playing word games again" is the lazy and unproductive way to respond to important points about how Wikipedia works--points you have never seemed able or willing to understand.

I'll leave it up to you how you want to respond to Carroll. DonFB (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This is not a comment about what anyone said in this Discussion. It is simply more information that is relevant to our discussion.

I made a suggestion today on the Discussion page for the Wikipedia Verifiability Guideline page. Someone responded and said that to "verify" in Wikipedia means that the "material" must in the "source". That is, if the text in a Wikipedia article makes a statement about something, with a reference to a source, that source must contain the information ("material") which was included in the Wikipedia article. So, by that definition, "verify" or "verifiability" means making sure a source actually contains the particular information that the Wikipedia article says the source contains. DonFB (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Changes

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

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

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

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

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

"...we could ask important questions..."

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

A Problem For Supporters of G.W.'s "Flight" of 14 August 1901

Whatever the configuration of G.W.'s Nr. 21 monoplane, to make a flight it would need to obey physical laws.

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

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

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

---

Discussing bias

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

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

Thanks for any clarification you'd care to offer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Added page header

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

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

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

---

Suggested Whitehead/Weisskopf Article Structure

The following is the structure I said I would suggest for the Wikipedia article. Do as you will with it.

GUSTAVE WHITEHEAD - GUSTAV ALBIN WEISSKOPF

SUMMARY

EARLY LIFE - Germany and High Seas

USA 1897 - 1927 (life details)

CLAIMED FLIGHTS

Pennsylvania - April or May 1899

Connecticut - August 1901

Long Island Sound - January 1902

AERIAL MACHINES

Boston - 1897

Flapping-wing glider

Lilienthal-type glider

New York - 1897

Lilienthal-type toy gliders & kites

Pittsburgh - 1899

Steam-powered machine

Connecticut - 1901 - 1911

Nr. 21 monoplane

Nr. 22 monoplane

Nr. 23 monoplane

Nr. 24 monoplane

Triplane glider

Albatross glider

Large Albatross glider (1908 Patent)

Large Albatross powered monoplane

"Whitehead's Effort" Albatross biplane

60-rotor vertical lift machine

Modern Reproductions

Kosch Whitehead Nr. 21 monoplane

Historical Flight Research Committee Gustave Whitehead (HFRC-GW) Nr. 21-B monoplane

AERIAL MACHINE PARTNERSHIPS

W. D. Custead

Stanley Yale Beach & Frederick C. Beach

Witteman Brothers

ENGINES

Locomobile-type steam engine - 1899

Oxy-acetylene engine

Kerosene engine

Two-cycle gasoline engine for glider

CONTROVERSIES

Flight Claims

Affidavits

Stella Randolph (1934-1937, 1966, 1978)

William J. O'Dwyer (1963-1978)

James B. Crane (1936, 1949)

Claimed Significance

Claimed Contacts

Otto Lilienthal & Gustav Lilienthal

Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright

Flight Counter-Claims

Charles Gibbs-Smith

Philip Jarrett

Orville Wright

Smithsonian Institution

Disputed Significance

Disputed Contacts

Otto Lilienthal & Gustav Lilienthal

Wilbur Wright & Orville Wright

SEE ALSO

NOTES

EXTERNAL LINKS

PUBLICATIONS

SUPPORTERS

Stella Randolph - 1937 (etc.)

Stella Randolph - 1966 (etc.)

William J. O'Dwyer & Stella Randolph - 1978 (etc.)

Albert Wüst (etc.)

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Article Edits

DonFB and Roger, I have decided to not contribute any of my own research to the article (which would not be appropriate, anyway) and so I have begun to do minor edits to the article to correct some of the more obvious errors and omissions.

The relatively minor changes I just made are:

His name and work lapsed into obscurity until a 1935 magazine article and follow-up book spotlighted his legacy and sparked a vigorous "first flight" debate among aviation buffs—including Orville Wright—that has lasted ever since.

changed to

His name and work lapsed into obscurity until a 1935 magazine article and subsequent books spotlighted his reported flights and sparked a vigorous "first flight" debate among aviation buffs, enthusiasts, historians and pioneers—including Orville Wright—that has lasted ever since.

He did most of his aviation work from about 1895 to 1911

changed to

He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911

He built several, one which was inspired by the Lilienthal glider.

changed to

He built two, one with flapping winglets (which was not successful) and one which was derivative of the Lilienthal glider.

Also in 1897, the manufacturer Horsman

changed to

Also in 1897, the manufacturer E. I. Horsman

Pittsburgh 1898-1899

changed to

Pittsburgh 1899

Connecticut 1900-1927

changed to

Connecticut 1901-1927

The article said he made his first flight in the aircraft after daybreak.

changed to

The article said "By this time the light was good. Faint traces of the rising sun began to suggest themselves in the east." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They all look good to me.

The prohibition against Original Research is fundamental to Wikipedia, but there is a little wiggle room. Here is a paragraph from the Original Research policy:

"Citing oneself

If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. If you are able to discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

So, what they're saying is that any "new" or existing information must still have been made public in a reliable source before it can be used in Wikipedia. A person who has performed original research is not prohibited from adding the information, if the information previously appeared in a reliable, verifiable source. ("Verifiable" means anyone can check to see if specific "material" in a Wikipedia article can be found in a reliable source.) Almost certainly, the source of the new information should be cited. (Not every statement in a Wikipedia article has to be cited, but "new" information, especially about a controversial subject, should be cited to justify its inclusion and reduce the chance of a challenge and removal.)

The policy refers to "a reliable publication," but I think that would extend to a "reliable" website (but that's just my opinion). Anyway, I point out these policy details for your use and guidance. The page in all its glory, if haven't seen it, is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Any word from Doug Malan? DonFB (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Mr. Malan asked me to pester him at his private e-mail address if I didn't hear form him in a few days, so I will.

Also, I believe I have located the whereabouts of the O'Dwyer Archive. I'll let you know once I confirm its location.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Another Edit

Whitehead devised two mechanisms for steering: the rope from wing edge to wing edge so he could try wing bending, and another mechanism to vary the speed of the two tractor propellers independently. He reportedly found that moving his body sideways worked so well that there is no record of him trying wing bending.

changed to

Whitehead devised two mechanisms for steering: the rope from wing edge to wing edge so he could try wing bending, and another mechanism to vary the speed of the two tractor propellers independently. However, the result of varying the speed of one propeller on a machine with two propellers (without applying a vertical rudder), is to cause the machine to yaw about its center of gravity, rather than enter a turn. He reportedly found that moving his body sideways worked so well that there is no record of him trying wing bending. Whitehead also stated in the Bridgeport Herald article previously referred to, "I was a hundred yards distant from them (note: trees) and I knew that I could not clear them by rising higher, and also that I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery." - a statement which casts doubt on the "wing bending" arrangement mentioned above.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Although Whithead's brother described a rope connected to the wingtips as a possible means of steering, Whitehead told the Herald that he had "no means of steering".

changed to

Although Whithead's brother described a rope connected to the wingtips as a possible means of steering, Whitehead told the Herald that he had "no means of steering… by using the machinery".

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Connecticut 1901-1927

changed to

Connecticut 1901

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Whitehead's Number 21 was a racy-looking monoplane with a wingspan of 36 ft (11 m). The wings were constructed of silk, ribbed with bamboo, supported by steel wires and modelled after the shape of a soaring bird's wing.

changed to

Whitehead's Number 21 monoplane had a wingspan of 36 ft (11 m). The wings were ribbed with bamboo, supported by steel wires and were very similar to the shape of the Lilienthal glider's wings. The arrangement for folding the wings also closely followed the Lilienthal design. Reports vary as to the covering used on the wings - silk (ex: William J. O'Dwyer), muslin (ex: Richard Howell) and canvas (ex: John Whitehead).

---

note: The reference to the wings of Nr. 21 being modeled on a soaring bird's wing is simply in error. Soaring bird's wings have a high-aspect ratio (narrow chord, long span). That cannot be said of Nr. 21's wings, so I changed it to the wording above.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Carroll, you can save a bit of work with a brief description of an edit in the "summary" text line just below the Edit window, a strongly recommended practice. It's not necessary to copy complete edits in the Discussion page; but potentially controversial edits can be explained here. Actual changes to an article can be seen by clicking on the "Diff" link in an article's History page, or in a personal Watchlist. DonFB (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for letting me know - very helpful. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Slight correction: On an article History page, the link to click is "Prev" (Previous); that will show the edit changes for a particular time and day. (The "Cur" (Current) link shows the difference between the most recent version and an earlier version.) In a Watchlist, use the "Diff" (Difference) link. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

J. Harworth Photo & Smithsonian

I do not understand why the photo of J. Harworth is included. Wouldn't it be better to first exhaust photos directly related to G.W. before including a prominently-placed photo of one of his supporters/workers ?

Also, I do not see that the Controversy & Smithsonian sections need to be so dominant. The article is too light on aerial machine-related narrative and too heavily weighted on what was, truly, a matter involving the Smithsonian and the Wright Family heirs. The fact that Wm. J. O'Dwyer was able to obtain the wording of that "Contract"/agreement is not central to the G.W. story.

The Smithsonian has not tried to suppress the G.W. story - far from it. G.W.'s placard and photo in the Early Flight Gallery is every bit the equal of the one devoted to Glenn L. Martin, for instance. Following the logic of including these sections in the G.W. article, then all the Wikipedia articles regarding everyone who tried to make a flight and managed a hop prior to 17 December 1903 should include the "Contract" matter, as well.

Wouldn't it be better to have the "Contract"/agreement matter be its own Wikipedia article and then link from the G.W. article to that other article - with a brief summary in the G.W. article?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree about the Harworth photo. I would not object to its deletion, although I can suggest someone who would. I also agree that the article would benefit from more information directly related to GW's aviation and engine-building work. If there are more sources or untapped material from existing sources to bring out that information, let's do so.

The Smithsonian information does not need to be in its own section. However, I do think the Smithsonian issue is quite relevant to the Gustave Whitehead story, even though it's not part of GW's actual life events. Controversy about GW's work, it seems to me, is central to telling people about him. O'Dwyer generated a lot of heat (maybe not too much light) about the "contract" and its relationship to the Smithsonian's recognition of the "first flight"--recognition that O'Dwyer saw as an injustice.

I'm not urging that the current text about the controversy remain untouched or unshortened by any means (clearly, it needs more editing), but I think claims for GW (by O'Dwyer, Randolph, Kosch and maybe even the good folks at the GW museum in Germany), and the Smithsonian response, deserve decent space in the article. That might even include adding information to the article about exhibit space given to GW by the Smithsonian. As you say, the contract was "a matter involving the Smithsonian and the Wright Family heirs." Nevertheless, O'Dwyer (and perhaps Kosch, though I don't think I've seen anything explicit) made the "contract" an important issue in the pro-Whitehead campaign, which enlarged the signficance of the contract beyond its original purpose. In effect, those researchers made the contract part of the "latter-day" GW story. I think the GW article should give an appropriate amount of attention to those developments. "Appropriate," of course, can be debated.

Advocates for other "first flight" claimants have not seized on the "contract" so vigorously and publicly, so it's not necessary to include anything about the contract in articles about other aviation pioneers. (Although--going from memory now--I think there have been occasional comments about the contract in Wikipedia by supporters of Santos Dumont and Vuia, and possibly Pearse as well. There have been major "edit wars" in some of those articles regarding primacy of the Wright brothers. I've been a combatant...)

I agree that O'Dwyer's publicizing the contract "is not central to the G.W. story," but it does play a role in the story. I'm certainly not averse to editing and shortening some of the text on this issue, especially the oversize "blockquotes".

I don't know if the "contract" deserves its own article, but a "History by Contract" article already exists, (it's far from perfect) and would be a suitable place to add information about the contract.

I've been a bit reluctant to hack away at some of the overdone text on these issues for reasons you may be able to guess. I think, collaboratively, we can work toward more balanced and streamlined text on the issues. DonFB (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Crane

Carroll, I hope you'll add info about Crane's reversal on the matter. About ten years later, I believe it was. You mentioned his playing "both sides" in an earlier Discussion comment. DonFB (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I will. While Prof. Crane was serious about his work, he undercut his argument by not mentioning his earlier view in his article of 11 years later.

Carroll F. Gray (talk)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carroll F. Gray (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Carroll F. Gray has shown a strong bias about Whitehead, both here on the discussion page and on his own web site. He believes that Whitehead never made any real flights, only a few short hops. It also shows in his edits of the article. He is also confused about his role, first writing that he will not make any edits himself, only suggest changes on the discussion page, than he flip-flops and starts making edits to the article. Much of his changes are original research, I can't see his references for most of his changes. First example: "He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911", no reference there.

Note that sources say he had built 50 airplanes before nr 21, the first 30 were not numbered. To have time for all these experiments it seems more likely that he started 1895 rather than 1897.

Changes he has made and changes he suggests shows that he has not been present and seen how and why parts of the article have developed into what it was before his changes and what it is now.

For example, an article about Whitehead can not be complete without telling the story about the research which has been done to restore awareness of him from a position when he was totally forgotten and unknown, and the resistance to that work which has been done by the Smithsonian, Orville Wright and many others. For example the Smithsonian denied ever having heard of him, until it was discovered that they had even published a book where he is mentioned many times. Langley avoided direct contact with Whitehead and instead he sent an assistant to investigate Whitehead's plane. L Jakab lied and said that his wife was never told about his flights, even though an interview showed that he told her about it August 14 1901. Totally silly arguments have been used to discredit him, like the idea that the last word on the issue should be left to his wife who never witnessed any of his flights. And the person who invented that silly idea is now here and is changing the article.

The Smithsonian is a very respected institution and it is important to show how devious they have behaved, both when it comes to Whitehead directly and when it comes to the contract, which was not directed directly towards Whitehead, but most likely has had a big importance in the issue of Whitehead.

I don't think we know the date his brother John saw the wingbending mechanism, so it should not be used as if it existed August 14 1901. It can have been added later and witnessed later.

In the source material we can read about a rudder, which was used together with changing the speed of one propeller in Januari 1902. We can not see a rudder, in the modern meaning of a rudder, in the pictures, but it is possible that Whitehead, who had studied how birds steer, had built in a function for bending the tail of the airplane, and that was what he called the rudder. Birds use the tail in that way to balance and steer in the air. So the propeller speed and the wingbending, which may have been incorporated after August 14 1901, where not the only two mechanisms for steering he had thought of, beside changing his bodyweight.

The quote: "Aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence even if new evidence shows that he flew before the Wright brothers: "While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[44]" which has now mysteriously been moved from the beginning of the section Significance to the end of that section, was inserted in a sneaky way into another section, to discredit Whitehead, and the rest of the Significance section was written to show that his work actually had a significance.

That quote which has now been moved to the end of the section, probably to turn the issue around and instead of being the reason for the rest of that section which showed that it was wrong now has been, in a sneaky way, moved to the end of the section, to serve as a response to the part which was a response to that quote. I protest against the first inclusion of that quote because it was an irrelevant and sneaky attempt to diminish Whitehead's significance, and I protest even more to the move of that quote to the end of the section, as it shows that the person who moved it is still trying to use sneaky ways to diminish Whitehead's significance. I suggest that this quote should simply be deleted from the article, because if what more than 25 witnesses and a reporter has told us is true he was actually the first inventor and pilot of the first motorized airplane, and sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor or diminish his role in the history of aviation should not be accepted in a fairminded article about him. Roger491127 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

1) Roger, I have said before and apparently I should say again that I am not anti-Whitehead. If I display any bias, please alert me to it, as has DonFB. I appreciate that - you have my welcome to do just that. You might also accept that I can do that for you, as well.

I had planned, initially, to offer my own research to you and DonFB for inclusion in the G.W. article and so did not wish to do edits. I have since decided that the article needs attention - both in content and style. SO, I have ceased to offer my own research and am now editing. I stated I was going to do this, above. I know it is difficult to read everything, but I did alert you and DonFB to this change.

2) "He did most of his aviation work from about 1897 to 1911" was a correction from "He did most of his aviation work from about 1895 to 1911" Please, tell me, what "aviation work" did he do in 1895 ? We know he built his first flapping winglet glider in Boston in 1987, so I used that as the beginning of his aviation work.

3) There is no reason I have seen to believe that G.W. built "50 airplanes before nr 21, the first 30 were not numbered." and there are sources that state that he numbered all his aerial machines. Where is your citation for saying he built "50 airplanes" before Nr. 21 ?

4) I have not been here as long as you have. I am doing my very best to be fair to G.W. but I will not agree to any inflation of his work or any exaggerated claims stated as true. As I have said repeatedly, I believe he deserves recognition for his dedicated work over years under very difficult circumstances, and the fact that he had a U.S. Patent on his and successful Large Albatross glider sets him apart form a multitude of other aerial experimenters.

5) Yes, I am here and yes, I am doing what it supposed to be done - trying to remove bias and to give a neutral, fair, verifiable and sourced account of G.W.'s work. I have discussed, at length, the other points you repeat, here, in other places in our previous discussions. Also, I am here doing this only because you, Roger, e-mailed me.

6) When you say something like the Smithsonian has been "devious" I can only shake my head in amazement.

7) We know the year John Whitehead stated what he did about the "wing bending" mechanism, just as we know the year G.W. said that "I had no means of steering around them by using the machinery."

8) The problem with what you say, Roger, is that you are speculating.

9) I did not move the Chmiel/Engler section.

10) I can only speak for myself, but I have done nothing "sneaky" here. Roger, is it that difficult to accept that the statements of people who dismiss the claims made about G.W. deserve a place in the article ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Quote: "sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor" -- I think this quote represents an unfair and unbalanced approach to writing an article about disputed events. I would say the writer of this quote has made up his mind about the disputed events and does not want to allow opposite opinions from sources to be included in the article. An article is not "fairminded" if one editor can arbitrarily exclude sourced opinions he does not agree with. This article, like any other in Wikipedia, should continue to include differing opinions from reliable sources about its subject. DonFB (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Junius Harworth

The Junius Harworth picture should stay in the article, because he is the source of several important quotes, he was the most longstanding helper to Whitehead and he is the best example of how several helpers of Whitehead got a good education from him and got good employments because of that education. Roger491127 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If the J. Harworth photo is kept, why not one of S. Randolph or Wm. J. O'dwyer or Wilbur or Orville Wright or Richard Howell or S.Y. Beach or Louise Tuba Whitehead ? As far as I can see, the J. Harworth photo adds nothing informative to the article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Carroll F Gray's web site

"The policy refers to "a reliable publication," but I think that would extend to a "reliable" website (but that's just my opinion)"

His web site can hardly be referred to as "a reliable publication", it has not been used by any other publication, and it is obviously very biased. Roger491127 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DonFB, i see you have restored the quote at the end of the Significance section. Was it you who moved it to the end of that section too, so it looks like a rebuttal of the text which was earlier a rebuttal of that quote when it was placed at the beginning of that section? Was it also you who included it into the article to begin with?

It would be good to involve Douglas S Malan in the discussions. I quoted, as well as I could remember, his earlier web page in another discussion with this sentence: "Someone said that the main contribution the Wright brothers did to the development of airplanes in USA was to delay the development with all their litigations and patent fights, and the result of this was that allied pilots, including american pilots, during world war 1 had to use european airplanes because there were no american planes available. Roger491127 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed the editor who originally added the Engler quotation, and I also rewrote the section where it appears. A section of a Wikipedia article should not be written as a "rebuttal" of its own information. A section, and an article, should simply be written so its information, including different sourced opinions, is easy to understand. A Wikipedia article, or any section in it, should not be written to "prove" a point. Perhaps the Significance section should begin with the sentence: "Whitehead's work attracted interest from other people in the budding industry, but opinions have varied over the significance of his work." DonFB (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree with DonFB's suggestion for an opening sentence to the Significance section.

My flyingmachines.org web site has been cited in numerous publications (hardback books and softcover books), by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Centennial of Flight, and numerous web sites. I will not engage in some sideline argument over the worth or value of my web site.

Roger, this is not combat. I know combat, and this is not it.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Reply to donfb

Quote: "Quote: "sneaky attempts like these to rob him of this honor" -- I think this quote represents an unfair and unbalanced approach to writing an article about disputed events. I would say the writer of this quote has made up his mind about the disputed events and does not want to allow opposite opinions from sources to be included in the article. An article is not "fairminded" if one editor can arbitrarily exclude sourced opinions he does not agree with. This article, like any other in Wikipedia, should continue to include differing opinions from reliable sources about its subject. DonFB (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)"

I have not made up my mind completely, but I agree with what Air Enthusiast magazine wrote in January 1988:

"The evidence amassed in his favour strongly indicates that, beyond reasonable doubt, the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test "hop", witnessed by a member of the press, took place on 14 August 1901 near Bridgeport, Connecticut. For this assertion to be conclusively disproved, the Smithsonian must do much more than pronounce him a hoax while wilfully turning a blind eye to all the affidavits, letters, tape recorded interviews and newspaper clippings which attest to Weisskopf's genius."[9]

A lot of other people have also drawn a similar conclusion, the people in Connecticut who pronounced him the first flyer in Connecticut, "In 1968 the state of Connecticut officially recognized Whitehead as "Father of Connecticut Aviation".[29]", the people at the Discovery Channel who decided to make a program about him (which was what drew my attention to this issue a couple of years ago), and many others.

I think this article has been spindoctored by people who want to diminish Whitehead's achievements. Some typical examples are the introduction of the quote:

Aviation researchers Louis Chmiel and Nick Engler dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence even if new evidence shows that he flew before the Wright brothers:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[44]" and the moving of it to the end of the section it was earlier the beginning of.

You, donfb, has said that nobody can remove properly sourced quotes no matter how irrelevant I think they are. I am going to take you up on that and reinsert properly sourced quotes which you have deleted. I thought the introduction of the quotes in the Determination section were irrelevant but as you refused to remove them I added one more quote about the determination of Wilbur which showed that his determination was certainly not as strong as the first quote indicated.

Now you have moved the quotes from the determination section into another part of the article, and you removed the quote I had added, which was very relevant re Wilbur's determination. I will restore that quote, and you can not, according to your own statement, remove it, because it is relevant to the determination of Wilbur and it is properly sourced. Roger491127 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Roger, you keep saying that G.W. made "the first fully controlled, powered flight that was more than a test 'hop'" but as I explain in "A Problem For Supporters of G.W.'s 'Flight' of 14 August 1901" above, that is an impossibility. I am not going to try to argue the logic of it (this isn't the place for that, agreed), but how can you repeat that assertion knowing that the data which resulted from the "pro-Whitehead" test flights, and G.W.'s own words, prove that the flights could not have happened ? And... yes, I will freely admit, this is the result of my original research and an argument I take both credit and blame for.

Again, Roger, isn't making the Wikipedia article about G.W. an accurate, sourced and balanced statement of his aeronautical experimentation the important thing to do ? Isn't that our task ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Well, perhaps you'll make up your mind some time. Whether you personally agree or disagree with the Air Enthusiast article is not relevant to the content of this Wikipedia article. I certainly don't care at all if you agree or disagree with Air Enthusiast. Your personal opinion about the events does not matter to the article. You know it does not matter. Your personal opinion about the events is irrelevant to the article. You know that. What matters is writing the article based only on reliable sources, not your opinion, or any other editor's opinion about the events. You know that. This article does not exist to help you give the "honor" to Whitehead that you believe he deserves, as you said in another comment. I don't care if you think history has "dishonored" Whitehead. Your opinion about his "honor" is irrelevant to the article. You know that.

What examples of 'spindoctoring' for and against Whitehead do you find in the article? Give examples. Keep in mind that reliable sources can have their own opinions, and those opinions, on both sides of the controversy, can be used in the article. How would you write the introduction to the quote by Chmiel and Engler?

I know that in the past you inserted material in the article that was simply your opinion and your deductions about the events, not well-sourced information. I know that a number of times you inserted material which stated certain events as fact with no citations given. That's where spin-doctoring has occurred, repeatedly. I removed such material, and I remember that another editor challenged an entire Section of material you added in an obvious attempt at spin-doctoring, violating the most basic and clear Wikipedia rules on article Neutrality. Rules that you understand, while at the same time continuing your completely wrongheaded and destructive crusade to promote your personal Point of View in the article.

I have not said well-sourced quotes cannot be removed if they are irrelevant. That's your imagination working. The Wilbur-Whitehead quotes are a brief look into the similarity of their deep passion to build flying machines, not a description of their years-long struggles. Adding another quote from only one of the men is an obvious attempt at spindoctoring. Why would you do that? DonFB (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 12

This is the source:

http://bridgeport.ct.schoolwebpages.com/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=21663

Shouldn't it be more openly and clearly stated that this source is the Bridgeport High School web site ?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

It should. The inconsistent and in some cases poor formatting of footnotes in this article (for which I share blame), is a source of dismay to me. At some point, the dedicated and selfless editors of this article should crank up their energy and do the footnotes justice. (Needless to say, the site has extensive guidelines and advice on how to use proper formatting.) As far as this particular source is concerned, I am willing to accept it, although it does show its own signs of bias. Better footnote formatting to clearly show the source can offer the reader something of an unstated "disclaimer." (My opinion on the issue; I don't know if such a concept can be found in the Guidelines/Rules.) DonFB (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Drawing

Question - how do we know that the pen and ink drawing (not a "sketch") was done by Richard Howell?

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Missing article link

Carroll, sometimes an editor will add brackets to create a link to a Wiki article which does not yet exist. This is acceptable, although it obviously should be done within reason. The idea is to encourage other editor(s) to create a new article which the first editor may have thought should exist about the topic, but did not have time or knowledge to create herself. (No worry, though, I don't think it's necessary to restore the link for airplane #22.) DonFB (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, since the unlinked un-sourced item was from Aug 2009 it seemed a year was sufficient time to find a source and then make a link. Since that hadn't happen, I deleted it. Wouldn't it be better to not add material unless a source citation is at hand ?

Thanks, Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hmm, I think we're talking about two different things. I'm not referring to the "citation needed" item which you acted upon appropriately, especially given the time elapsed. I'm talking about an internal link that you deleted (harmlessly) to a non-existent Wikipedia article called, "Airplane 22" (or whatever it said exactly). Just FYI, some editors will create an internal link to a name, or a term, or some topic mentioned in an article—a topic which they think should become a new article, but which does not yet exist in Wikipedia. The information in one Wikipedia article which is linked in the text of another Wiki article is not considered a "source" for the article where the link exists. A link to an uncreated article simply amounts to a "suggestion" to anyone sufficiently interested in the topic to create a new article about it. If no one does that, even for an extended period of time, no harm is done to the "host" article, nor does the link, in and of itself, mean that an editor added information to the host article without a source. Elsewhere in this and every other article, you will see various words, names and so forth (some quite trivial) linked in the host article. The technique is just meant to offer the reader more information on a related topic, if they care to click on it. But again, the linked topic should not be construed as a "source" for the host article. It is just another article which a reader may decide, or not, to read. So if you see a link to a non-existent Wikipedia article, you need not delete the linkage (unless the link is vandalous or otherwise absurd.) Er, am I making sense? DonFB (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Yes, you do make sense. Thanks, again Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Boiling it down

Ack...I got a headache reading through the new and old Dickie material about the blasted boiler/engine/hose, etc.etc. Carroll, I wonder if you could summarize here in the Discussion what all the verbiage means, as you understand it. I think it would be useful to condense (so to speak) at least some of this part of the controversy into plain, unquoted, easy-to-follow English, with the appropriate citations. We could polish the language here before putting it into the article, hopefully replacing at least some of the convoluted text in the article. Are you amenable, or do you feel that the (painfully) detailed explanations are indispensable?

Helpful would be something generally along the lines of:

According to O'Dwyer, Dickie said the engine was........

But the Dickie affadavit shows that........

(I don't even know if the above is vaguely correct, but the wording suggests the simplification that I think would be good.) DonFB (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Apologies for the tortured language.

The point is O'Dwyer and others use the "boiler" to discredit Dickie, and in particular, O'Dwyer erroneously states that Dickie changed his statement at some later time and then concludes that makes Dickie's affidavit of little value.

Since the Dickie affidavit existed in 1937 with those supposedly "later" changes clearly in evidence in 1937, the changes weren't made "later" and that part of O'Dwyer's argument comes completely unglued.

I wonder what the best way to handle such a thing really is. Here we have a "source" saying something, making an argument, that doesn't hold up to close view. Should that argument then be removed from the article or should the matter be explained for the article's readers?

Since discrediting Dickie is a major point to those making a case on behalf of G.W. I think it deserves some mention and explanation.

Here's a simplified re-write:

________

To discredit Dickie, O'Dwyer states that Dickie made "later admissions" about the steam boiler. However, Dickie's 1937 affidavit contains a clear handwritten statement that the boiler was not installed in the machine, but fed steam to an onboard engine. In short, there were no "later admissions" about this matter, and O'Dwyer mistakenly states there were.

Similarly, Dickie says that the distance between propellers was 11 ft. O'Dwyer uses this to conclude that Dickie "cannot have been acquainted with that aeroplane." - meaning the No. 21. However, the distance between the propellers of the 1910 Whitehead Large Albatross-type engine-powered biplane was 11 ft. - Dickie was referring to the 1910 aeroplane. [source: S. Randolph's "Lost Flights of Gustave Whitehead, 1937, p. 87]

________

Feel free to suggest changes. I will say that I softened this by saying "O'Dwyer mistakenly states there were" - whereas I am of the opinion that O'Dwyer possibly does this intentionally. I have found a number of examples of such "mistakes" by O'Dwyer, all bearing on G.W.'s critics.

The paragraph which precedes mine is jumbled and thick also. We could simplify that one to better effect, also.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for that. I agree that the issue should not be stricken from the article, just streamlined. I'll bear down a little more on the material and take a shot at rewriting/paraphrasing the block quote which precedes your new text in the article and blend in your rewrite here. (But not tonight...) My lament about the convolutions applies as much, or more, to the block quote that was already present in the article. To be sure I understand: your statement that the Dickie handwriting is not "later" is because it is visible in the image shown in the Randolph book, itself published in 1937? Also, not to put too fine a point on it, does Randolph explicitly say Dickie was referring to the Albatross when he talked about propeller separation, or is that her assumption?

I may appear overly exacting in the way I prefer to word some of these "touchy" issues. (My approach has changed greatly from my first days editing on the site, when I tossed around editorial comments with reckless abandon.) I'm motivated by some good discussions I've read on the site about using neutral language, and also by my own somewhat obsessive insistence in previous discussions about this particular article on the necessity for being objective and neutral. You might find it surprising, even humorous, that there are recommendations in the site's Guidelines that words like "however" be avoided, because a word like that implies less value to one thing and more value to another. I try simply to state the conflicting information (with citations) while avoiding terms like "mistake" or "error"--unless those words can actually be attributed to a source. I have truly embraced the idea that Wikipedia has no "voice" of its own, but is only a conduit for information, and opinions, reliably sourced, of others. Of course, that ideal is not universally honored in the articles. DonFB (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

DonFB, I'm trying to get the hang of this, thanks for your patience. My urges, which I have been trying to suppress, are to lay out the counter argument and let Roger or others handle the proponent position, but that is not appropriate here. This isn't a debate - that much I have finally understood.

I use "however" in the sense of "on the other hand" but I will cut it. One thing (I am re-reading "History by Contract") I have yet to find in O'Dwyer's narrative is what the various numbered photos shown to people were actually of. It would have been nice to have that series available to review. Perhaps it will be found in the pages yet unread.

I plan to post my published Whitehead article and perhaps someone will find it and choose to add some of my points to this article.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

No criticism intended, just info and guidance. I'm sure you can still use "however" sometimes without the Wikipedia police closing in; just mentioned that specific example to give a sense of how the Wiki flame-keepers (which is not a tiny group of staff, but many contributors who develop policies collaboratively and write the Guideline pages the way articles are written--lots of changes, lots of debates) have carefully considered matters of writing style. Leave a note here when your article goes up, and where it can be found. DonFB (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm having trouble ftp'ing to my sites, so if you'll send me an e-mail I'll send the text of my article to you. I have Roger's e-mail from when he first contacted me. cfgrayATmacDOTcom Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Dickie, condensed

I eliminated most the Air Enthusiast blockquote about Dickie. My revision boils it down to Dickie's denial of seeing the flight, and Air Enthusiast's report that says he looked at photos of another airplane, not the #21. I left out details of the boiler and the hose, etc., which did not seem especially cogent or relevant. If they are, the info, with a citation that explains the significance, can be restored. I also left out mention of the name of the airplane that Dickie evidently saw photos of. Likewise, with clear sourcing, that can be restored. For the moment, I deleted text about O'Dwyer and CAHA interviewing witness survivors. I'll put that into the Research section. I also will reduce or eliminate most of the blockquote about O'Dwyer's interview with Dickie, and replace it with a shorter description of the essentials. DonFB (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I just read your condensation of the Dickie paragraphs, very well stated, thanks. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I do see a bit of a problem with the revision I made. Your earlier text in the article says, "O'Dwyer states that Dickie made 'later admissions'". In my rewrite, I said, "O'Dwyer said Dickie's affidavit was unreliable, because Dickie made 'later' handwritten changes to it." In both cases, the footnoted source appears to be Randolph's 1937 book. But that long precedes the period when O'Dwyer was researching and commenting. What source can be cited for O'Dwyer's statement about Dickie's "later admissions"? Is it in History by Contract, or the 1960s Randolph book? DonFB (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

This is O'Dwyer's argument, which he is quoted making in the Air Enthusiast #35, January 1988, article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I couldn't find anything in Air Enthusiast about the handwritten additions to the Dickie affidavit, so I didn't write anything about that. In closely rereading that article and Dickie's affidavit, I got sucked into the boiler/engine business, so I added an explanation about that. Also, I hopefully clarified details of the controversy about the photographs Dickie looked at, and their relationship to his comments and the Number 21 airplane. DonFB (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

also, please note: I'm having trouble ftp'ing to my sites, so if you'll send me an e-mail I'll send the text of my article to you. I have Roger's e-mail from when he first contacted me. cfgrayATmacDOTcom Carroll F. Gray (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I want to read it, but it will need to be publicly posted as a "reliable" source before it can be used for article citations. If you want, you can send email by clicking my moniker DonFB, which will take you to my (blank) User Page. On the left side, in the Toolbox section, there is a link, "Email this user". DonFB (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Once I can ftp again, I'll post images of the article so it can be cited from a site, but I wanted to get the text to you and Roger J. to review. I've sent the article to you as plain text via the toolbox e-mail link. The citation for the published article is: WW1 AERO, The Journal Of The Early Aeroplane #183, Feb. 2004, pp. 5-22, "Understanding Gustave Whitehead's Aerial Adventures," by Carroll F. Gray Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment tone

I posted the following on the Wikipedia Aviation Timeline Discussion page, but will take the liberty of doing so here, too.

Isn't there a Wikipedia guideline against character assassination such as indulged in by Roger J., when he calls Dr. Peter Jakab a "a proven liar and manipulator of history" ? What sanction is there (is there any ?) for an editor behaving like this, casting personal insults and making libelous statements about a person ? I would like to know. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Whitehead's "Progress"

Not obsessing over this for a citation, but I am curious; how do we know GW owned and read Progress In Flying Machines? DonFB (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

We know becase we're told so in "History by Contract," p.94, O'Dwyer and Randolph, 1978, (writing of the Wrights and G.W.) "They differed when it came to the type of craft configuration found mots suitable. Both of them did begin with biplane surfaces, and the Wrights continued with biplanes, while whitehead devoured the advice and interesting legacy of Count D'Esterno, which he found in Chanute's books, and used them." and "History by Contract," pp.254-255, O'Dwyer and Randolph, 1978, which displays images of books owned by G.W., with penciled notes on inside rear cover of his copy of "Progress in Flying Mchines."

As for the newest re-wording of the O'Dwyer/Dickie matter, I think the current wording doesn't quite say what is to be said, which is that what Dickie had to say in his 1937 affidavit was not changed through "later admissions." O'Dwyer's charge against Dickie therefore fails to hold up. Here is how I would restate what you've written:

__________

The article also reported that after O'Dwyer interviewed Dickie in the 1960s, O'Dwyer believed that Dickie's 1937 affidavit had "little value," because of Dickie's supposed "later admissions" in the interview that a boiler Dickie saw was located on the ground and was used to send steam to operate the machinery in the airplane. In the original 1937 typed affidavit there is a handwritten statement by Dickie that the boiler was not installed in the aircraft, but fed steam to an onboard engine and that it would have been "impossible" for the "plane" to carry the boiler - which is consistent with what Dickie told O'Dwyer in the 1960's interview, not a later admission.

__________

For what it is worth, my hypothesis about all this is that Dickie was looking at a photo of the 1909 Whitehead-Beach aeroplane, while O'Dwyer was asking about the No. 21. When Dickie's comments didn't square with the No. 21 and Dickie began to discuss the heavy boiler on the ground, O'Dwyer ended up believing Dickie's 1937 affidavit had "little value." In short, "cross-talk."

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To Carroll F. Gray: Thanks for sending me your 2004 article.

The first issue I want to comment: Quote from Whitehead: "The span amounts to 36 feet and the wing surface area (area of the bearing areas) is 450 square feet. The wings are strongly concave on their lower surfaces .."

Your comment:"One of the first things to notice is the statement that the total surface area of the Òbearing areas is 450 sq. ft., which has often been interpreted, erroneously, to be the total surface area of the two wings plus that of the tail surface. Whitehead's statement that the bearing areas are strongly concave on their lower surfaces eliminates the flat uncurved tail surface of Whitehead's flying apparatus from consideration as a bearing area."

Your logic is faulty here. that the bearing areas are strongly concave at the rear end of the wings does not exclude the possibility that the the tail is also a bearing area. On the contrary, as we know that the tail was horizontal it must have served as a bearing area. As Whitehead stated that the wings had a total area of 450 square feet the total bearing area was 450 square feet plus the area of the tail. But the curved rear of the wings caused a lot of lifting power, while the rest of the wings and the tail served as stabilizing horizontal bearing areas.

Whitehead did maybe not count the tail as an always bearing area, because one can imagine a situation when the plane's nose pointed down too much, Whitehead had to raise the tail, so the bearing power of the tail would decrease for a moment, causing the nose to rise. But if the tail was angled correctly from the beginning there would be no need for any adjustments, the tail would keep the plane horizontally at all times. Could the plane rise quickly, at a steep angle, into the air, while remaining in a horizontal pitch position? Yes, if the speed at that time was high enough, then the strongly curved bat-formed wings would give a lot of lifting power. If he then slowed down a little, he could fly horizontally, as the lifting power and the gravity were equal. If he increased the speed the plane would rise higher, if he slowed down the plane would sink, and all the time the pitch would stay horizontal because of the big horizontal tail area.

If he had placed the downward curve of the wings too far forward the stream of air forced downward would have caused the nose to rise, if he had placed it closer to the rear of the plane it would have lifted the tail and caused a nose-dive. Placed correctly it caused the plane to rise vertically without affecting the pitch of the plane. It was very stable pitch-wise.

(In stark contrast to the Wright brothers plane, which was almost impossible to control pitch-wise before September 1905 when they moved the front height rudder so far ahead of the plane that the pitch could be manually controlled because the reaction time became long enough for a human to control the pitch. But their plane wasn't stable pitch-wise even after September 1905. They could not let go of the controls, turn off the motor and watch the plane land itself safely. It was still not stable pitch-wise all by itself.) Roger491127 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, Roger. As you can read in the translation of the October 1901 Illustrierte Aeronautische Mitteilungen article, G.W. himself says "At each side, reinforced with bamboo and covered with silk, a wing ('bearing area') is arranged. The span amounts to 36 feet and the wing surface area ('area of the bearing areas') is 450 square feet." The quoted words within the parentheses is the literal German wording, written by G.W. As you can read, G.W. does not include the horizontal tail as a "bearing area."

Also, the primary problem with the front "rudder" (as the Wrights called it - we would now say a canard elevator - was that the pivot point was improperly located and so it required a careful touch to make it stay in position. During Wilbur Wright's last flight (his second of 17 December 1903 - the 4th event of that day) he was able to actively control and eliminate the unwanted pitching of the 1903 Flyer for some 2/3rd of it's 852 foot flight.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

About the machine Dickie witnessed about

The machine Dickie witnessed about was not a boat motor, as far as I have read about it. It was a very big machine used to rotate a tethered airplane around in a circle, to test its aerodynamic properties. It served the same purpose as a wind tunnel. I think the description of it which is now deleted made that clear. Roger491127 (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)