Talk:Claims to the first powered flight

Jane's repeats Brown's debunked claim

I believe I've stated my concerns satisfactorily in the Edit Summaries. The title of this talk section also summarizes the gist of my edits. I'll look forward to a response here soon. DonFB (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jane's, gets cited three times - in the lead, in the historical summary and in the section on Whitehead. This may be compared to similar mentions of the Wrights and Santos-Dumont, the other claimants to have any notable following today. It is done to maintain a balanced and unbiased presentation. Can you - or anybody else - think of a neater way to maintain balance and cite Whitehead's minority following than by citing Jane's three times? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You write that " Jane's repeats Brown's debunked claim". I re-read Jane's today and I didn't see that, can you quote it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the first part of your response is: 1) inappropriately personalized (an editor with a different opinion is "unhappy") and 2) not very cogent; you simply say it's ok to repeat the identical information about Jane's three times. You also fail to give a reason for reverting my edits which explain that Jane's repeated a crucial claim by Brown that was convincingly debunked by Gray.

The relevant text by Jackson, as shown in Brown's reprint of Jane's editorial, which you cited:

"Because of the cost of reproducing photographs in journals of the day, the weekly Herald used the editor’s picture of the Condor in flight as the basis of a lithograph which illustrated a full-page feature article in its next edition, published on 18 August. Such substitution was common newspaper practice — and, indeed, producing exactly this type of engraved image was Fred Jane’s first known employment. There is written evidence that the original photograph (blurred because of the poor dawn light) was shown at indoor exhibitions of early aviation imagery and artifacts in both 1904 and 1906. Its current whereabouts are shrouded in mystery."

Jackson does not even admit of any uncertaintly whether a photo was taken of #21 flying that morning, and he refers explicitly to the 1906 exhibition, which is the source of the photo-within-the photo debunked by Gray. "Its current whereabouts are shrouded in mystery"---his certainty about the identity of the image is embarrassing. DonFB (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the quote you ascribe to me in the reply I left you with, I deleted it. I ask you if you can think of a neater way, you interpret this as my regarding my effort as OK, sorry I don't get your logic: maybe you are reading veiled insinuations into my words or something? I try not to do that, it always messes up conversations like this one.

Now we come to the photographs. The way I read it, Jackson writes that "Its current whereabouts are shrouded in mystery". Later, Brown claims to have found it. If Jackson had swallowed Brown's mistake in time for that editorial, he would not have said the Whitehead photo was lost, he would have said that it was found. So Jackson cannot have swallowed Brown's mistake. The photo that Brown had actually found turned out to be quite a different one, as Gray showed. There is all the world of difference between a photo of Whitehead purported to exist and an existing photo purported to be of Whitehead - they are not the same photo at all! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In brief: Brown made two major erroneous claims: an original photo existed (which he "identified" in the exhibit) of Whitehead flying #21, and the Herald used the purported original photo as the basis for its published illustration. Jackson repeated both errors in his editorial. This is a simple case of one person repeating another person's errors--very publicly, and it is information which belongs in this article--especially given the fact that the Jane's editorial is mentioned more than once. DonFB (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: You are confusing Brown's find of another copy of the same photo of the exhibit room already known to other researchers; the original is housed in the Smithsonian. He thought the photo would enable him to perform a better "forensic analysis" because it was, he believed, sharper than the same image other researchers had already analyzed. He did not find "quite a different one," as you wrote, with different content than previously known photos. He found another copy of the same exhibit photo and conducted his faulty analysis on it. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply, it was night time here. I'll take your Addendum first, as it illustrates a point. I do not mention the two copies of the exhibition photo, I only mention the photo-within-a-photo that Brown thought he had spotted. There is no scope for me to confuse two things which I did not mention, it is you who are confused as to which photos I meant. Likewise, I do appear to have been confused over which photos you were referring to in your edit summaries. So many photos, so much scope for confusion.

In that light, I turn to your main point. Jackson in fact does more than merely echo Brown's view that an original photo of the No.21 in flight existed, he elaborates on the second step - the journalistic context which he feels adds credence to the idea. Jackson was an experienced publisher, so I am prepared to give such journalistic judgements more weight than is safe to give to his historical judgements. You assert that the photo never existed. For Wikipedia to place that assertion in the article, we need to cite a reliable source WP:RS. Such an RS might be partisan and offer evidence and arguments that challenge the existence of that photo, or it might be sufficiently impartial and assert that the supposed original photo's nonexistence is definitive. I am sure that RS must exist for the halfway position, but you will surely know better than I whether and where any RS exists for the stronger impartial judgement that it never did.

These are exactly the kinds of detailed claim and counter-claim in the sources that I am hoping this article will eventually come to present. You have not yet offered any such RS, so I felt forced to remove the uncited claim. I am hoping that you can produce RS allowing it to be reinstated, but whether in half-way or stronger form must depend on the source. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to add, this article in Time could be an alternative cite to Jane's in the lead and the historical summary. Bit it shows the spurious photo analysis without Gray's correction, so I felt that it was a bit misleading in favour of Whitehead. There is also this piece from National Geographic. Would either of these be a better cite for the lead and the historical summary? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson makes the same arguments as Brown in talking about the cost of half-toning and the habits of newspapers in converting photos to "lithographs" in those days. He is clearly relying on Brown's work and Brown's conclusions. Jackson, as you know, praises Brown in the editorial, and recommends Brown to Jane's readers If you don't believe Jackson's opinions in the editorial relied upon Brown's work, say so. My edits to the article do not assert that "the photo never existed." That's almost certainly true, but is not what I wrote, and therefore a RS for such a statement is not the issue. My edits do refer exclusively to the exhibit room photo. You erroneously said that Brown discovered "quite a different" photograph. He did not. Brown made a huge mistake and Jackson indeed swallowed it; else he would hardly have written that editorial. Jackson is clearly influenced by Brown, talking with certainty about a photo taken by the Herald reporter/editor and the photo's use in creating the newspaper's published illustration, a subject Brown covers in exhaustive, and exhausting, detail. If you believe this article can mention Jane's editorial multiple times without mentioning the egregiously faulty photo analysis that helped inspire it, you are mistaken. If you truly want this article to present these kinds of claims and counter claims, attempting to exclude the fact of the photo debunking is not the way to go about it. My bedtime now, so I'll read and comment on the journalistic pieces you cited on the morrow. DonFB (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson clearly relies heavily on Brown, he acknowledges as much at the start, that is not at issue. What he does not appear to rely on is Brown's mistaken identification of the Montgomery photograph. You claim that Brown's faulty analysis helped inspire Jackson's piece, writing "My edits do refer exclusively to the exhibit room photo. You erroneously said that Brown discovered "quite a different" photograph. He did not. Brown made a huge mistake and Jackson indeed swallowed it". This muddles up the exhibition photo issue with the original lithograph issue. Gray showed conclusively that these are two wholly independent images. Jackson considered only the origin of the lithograph, you consider only the origin of the exhibition photo. There is no crossover. I have already noted how Jackson's observation, that the purported original photo of the No.21 in flight is lost, flatly contradicts Brown's claim to have found an image of it. Do you have RS for your assertion that Jackson's piece was indeed influenced by the claim that it so flatly contradicts?

FWIW when I said that Brown discovered "quite a different photo" I was affirming that the Montgomery photo was in fact "quite a different photo" from the supposed original shot of the No.21 in flight. There is no error on my part here, only your continuing confusion over which photo is being discussed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, now I've set this article up I have decided that I should pull back and leave you guys to get on with it for a while. I've said my bit here, if you edit/restore as you see fit, I will not interfere again. Folks can always ping me or drop a line on my talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gray did not show conclusively that two independent images were involved. He showed conclusively that Brown misidentified an image contained in a single previously known photograph--an image that Brown claimed was Whitehead flying, an error that Jackson repeated. Any 2nd "independent image" has never been found. I did not "consider only the origin of the exhibition photo"; its origin is well-known: it's in the Hammer Collection at the Smithsonian, and I believe the photographer has been named. Brown and Jackson both state that the supposed "original" photograph was lost; neither is contradicting the other. Jackson's editorial is filled with gushing praise for Brown, and Jackson is delighted that Brown "found" an image of the "lost" photo. DonFB (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other claims

Pearse and Jatho should be in this article. I can help. DonFB (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds useful. I have no source on Pearse. The only source I have on Jatho (Gibbs-Smith's "Hops and Flights") says that German historians make no claims to his efforts being true flights, so a source that specifically mentions such a claim would be necessary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Pearse was a citizen of the British Empire at the time of his flights. As a result, credit offered to him extends beyond New Zelands Borders.--Karloss12 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

As per [[WP:PROVEIT] you will need to provide a non-NZ ref to show this. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourced quotes showing Jane's repeated Brown's bungle

Brown, on the "Detailed photo analysis" page of his website:

"A photo taken of Whitehead's first flight on August 14, 1901 by the Chief Editor of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald, Richard Howell, was half-toned to create the lithograph which appeared in that newspaper's August 18, 1901 edition."

Jane's editorial by Jackson, quoted in Brown's website:

"...the weekly Herald used the editor’s picture of the Condor in flight as the basis of a lithograph which illustrated a full-page feature article in its next edition, published on 18 August."

Brown, on his main page:

"The weekly newspaper, Bridgeport Herald, whose Chief Editor was present, reported Whitehead’s flight on August 18, 1901. The article included an etching (lithograph) based on a photo he’d taken"

"The original photo of Whitehead’s first motorized flight has since been lost. The newspaper which used it to prepare the lithograph no longer exists. And Whitehead’s own copy was destroyed in a fire when his workshop burnt down."

"Luckily, this site's author found the lost photo."

Brown then begins discussing the 1906 aeronautical exhibition room panoramic photo and writes:§

"The lost photo was discovered in the background display"

The webpages which contain these quotations are currently cited in the article. DonFB (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in this do I see Jane's repeat the claim that the lost photo had been found. What exactly is the bungle you say they repeated? 83.104.46.71 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (steelpillow (talk · contribs) still struggling with secure login)

Brown claimed: 1) the photo was taken by the editor, a mistake repeated by Jackson; 2) the photo showed the Condor (No. 21) flying, a mistake repeated by Jackson; and 3) the photo was used to make the "lithograph," a mistake repeated by Jackson. DonFB (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not one bungle, it is three bungles. Which of these bungles are you referring to when you say "Brown's bungle" in the singular? All of them collectively? And which photo are you referring to in these three bungles? The one that Jane's said was lost, or the photo-in-a-photo that Brown found? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can read, I referred to three mistakes that Brown made and were parroted by Jackson. Brown and Jackson both said the photo was lost. I refer to the one Brown said he "found." You said: "Jackson clearly relies heavily on Brown, he acknowledges as much at the start, that is not at issue. What he does not appear to rely on is Brown's mistaken identification of the Montgomery photograph". Evidently, in contradiction of your own words, you do think it's an issue. Whence comes your unexplained conclusion that Jackson's editorial relies heavily on Brown, except for Brown's biggest bungle: his wrong identification, detailed to exhaustion on his website, of the photo on the wall? DonFB (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You avoid answering my request for clarification. We can now add the further query, how does seeking clarification of what you mean constitute acknowledgement of an issue? As for my conclusion, I would have thought that it was obvious enough: the editorial openly acknowledges Brown's influence and we are all agreed on that. On the other hand, where the editorial regards the No.21 photo as lost, Brown's blunder was to regard it as found. I cannot fathom the logic which deduces that a glaringly evident contradiction of Brown's position is apparently an affirmation of it. Hence my probing questions, which you so studiously avoid addressing (You may note that I did you the courtesy of directly answering your question to me). I doubt that this discussion topic has any further mileage, we are too far apart. Anyway, I have bombed your words of wisdom with a fact tag, so we shall see if anybody can verify them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson's editorial clearly echoes Brown's website explanation about photo reproduction in newspapers, the cost, lithography, etc., and even points to Jane himself as a practioner of the craft. It's not a coincidence that Jackson discussed this issue in his editorial in very similar terms to those Brown used in his "detailed" photo analysis. I've already explained to you that both Jackson and Brown believed an "original" photo print, if such ever existed, of No. 21 flying became lost (or destroyed). Brown claimed he "discovered" the image of the reputed photo within the panoramic room photo, but it seems to escape your awareness that there's no contradiction in Brown and Jackson (and yourself, if it comports with your view of history) believing that an original photo print was "lost" subsequent to its display on the wall of the exhibit. The only problem, of course, is that the photo at the exhibit, supposedly showing the flight, was not the photo which both Brown and Jackson have claimed was "lost." They, and you, are simply left with a tenuous assertion that such a photo actually existed. In the aftermath, Brown's "discovery," so crucial to the body of his heartily-praised research by Jackson, stands as false, as I briefly summarized in the text of this article's Introduction. DonFB (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You write, "In the aftermath, Brown's "discovery," so crucial to the body of his heartily-praised research by Jackson,...". But compare this to Jackson's remark to journalists on 22 March 2013, just a fortnight after the editorial was published; "Too many debates about Whitehead have been kicked into the 'long grass' by diversionary wrangling ... And that entirely spurious "Where's the photograph?" argument.".[1] Note that Jackson's dismissal of the photo's significance comes many months before Gray would hammer the nails into its coffin. This evidences that, contrary to your assertion, Jackson never did rely on Brown's flawed photographic analysis. FYI I personally have an open mind on whether an original photo ever existed of the No.21 in the air. There is some circumstantial evidence for it but the sources are inconclusive. As Gray remarked, "In 'The Strange Case of Gustave Whitehead' nothing seems to be what it appears to be."[2] That's one reason I find the debate so fascinating in its own right. 83.104.46.71 (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (steelpillow (talk · contribs) in dire need of an updated computer)

Jackson certainly did try to walk back his unqualified endorsement of Brown's research--after his editorial had been published. You, and he, are making some sort of post-facto argument about that. His editorial--which is the item mentioned in this article, not his post-editorial hedges--shows no evidence of him not relying on the major points of Brown's research, in which the "detailed photo analysis," whose language Jackson clearly echoed in his editorial, held a central position. Regarding the citation tag you added: Verification already exists in footnotes in the article that Jackson relied heavily on Brown's research and that Brown's research included a grossly mistaken identification of the photo-in-the photo. In point of fact, we both agree those are accurate statements. Your argument, such as it is, rests on the claim of synthesis, which is absent. If there's any synthesis in this discussion, it's yours: that Jackson didn't really mean what he wrote in the editorial, because of something he said later. DonFB (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think our difference is pretty clear now, and pretty small really. I take the editorial very literally and see no mention of the photo-in-a-photo argument, while you see that argument as inescapably implicit in the logic of the words. Consequently, I see Jackson's later disclaimer as a clarification while you see it as a backing-off. Can I suggest that I mention and cite that later disclaimer, in a neutral way so that other readers can make up their own minds which way to see it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC) (fingers crossed, this browser is working)

Sure, go ahead and add info on his revisionist commentary. Of course, the debunk text needs to remain in the article (currently in two positions, matching the two Jane's spotlights), and the citation tag in the Introduction needs to be removed. I'll review your new text for Npov as I would any addition. DonFB (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking the photo-in-a-photo debacle with Jackson's editorial is original research and Wikipedia's policy does not allow it. Please stop doing it (unless and until you can find an RS which states the link, of course). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They are clearly linked, as seen in quotations from Jackson's editorial:

"the weekly Herald used the editor’s picture of the Condor in flight as the basis of a lithograph which illustrated a full-page feature article...There is written evidence that the original photograph (blurred because of the poor dawn light) was shown at indoor exhibitions of early aviation imagery and artifacts in both 1904 and 1906."

Jackson explicitly states his belief that the Herald newspaper illustration was based on "the editor's picture" supposedly taken of the craft in flight, and that the original photo "was shown at indoor exhibitions." That "original" photo is precisely the one Brown claimed to have identified in his exhaustively detailed "forensic analysis." DonFB (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not co-displayed with Aerodrome

"Back to the Beginning" piece in Flight incorrectly states, twice, that the Wright Flyer was displayed in the Smithsonian before Orville sent it to Britain. Flyer was never in the Smithsonian until after its return from Britain. Not the best source for facts in this article. DonFB (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually...

Do you want to include the return flight of Charles Renard and Arthur Constantin Krebs in the dirigible La France, powered by electric batteries driving twin propellers in 1884? Otherwise, best move this page to Claims to the first heavier-than-air powered flight. >MinorProphet (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The Smithsonian contract with the Wrights created a conflict of interest. The book History by contract was named after this issue. In 2013 Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian openly acknowledged the conflict of interest. It has been an important part of the Whitehead controversy and is reliably sourced. It cannot simply be airbrushed out of the article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You can certainly cite HBC for the claimed COI, but you will have to show me a source where the SI admits a COI. You have not done so. DonFB (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here, as cited several times in the article:

The contract remains in force today.... I can only hope that, should persuasive evidence for a prior flight be presented, my colleagues and I would have the courage and the honesty to admit the new evidence and risk the loss of the Wright Flyer.
Tom Crouch         Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum

The text I have emphasised in bold makes no sense if such a conflict is denied. You may choose to call it something else, a dilemma perhaps, or a division of loyalties. But you cannot deny a descriptive phrase or noun to the sentiment expressed in that sentence just because it is worded without one. Use of a suitable phrase, to say what is being said in a different way, is not OR but is perfectly permissible on Wikipedia. If you still wish to avoid it, then we can quote the passage as I have done here and let the reader divine what sentiment they choose. Would that make you happier? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with quoting the passage. (It has been in the GW article for years.) In the passage, you see the SI "admitting" a COI. I see it stating its belief in the confirmed historical record and its willingness to consider credible new evidence. DonFB (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That link appears broken. Here is an archive copy. I think you have to ask, if there is no COI, then why are courage and honesty explicitly aspired to? One does not need to write "COI" in order to acknowledge one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The argument that there is an actual 'conflict of interest' seems to be unsupported by anything or anyone but supporters of Whitehead, looking for an explanation for mainstream aviation historiography failing to support their claims. As such, it is of little relevance to the topic of this article, given Wikipedia's policies on appropriate sourcing, and on how balance is achieved. Whitehead's 'flights' are unrecognised not because the Smithsonian has conspired to hide them, but because the clear broader consensus is that credible evidence for them actually taking place is lacking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To add to this, I suspect there may possibly be an element of confusion here, due to the way the term 'conflict of interest' is bandied about in internal Wikipedia discussions. Wikipedia-speak's usage is far broader in scope than that used more generally, and isn't an appropriate standard to apply to in-article descriptions of external bodies and their activities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, an oldie but goodie rears its head. My previous answer stands: source needed to describe SI position as "admitting" COI. Courage and honesty required to admit they're wrong and risk losing the plane. DonFB (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

See also that thread on WP:FTN: [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Vuia et al

First: I make no claim and carry no brief for what Vuia did. Take note, however, of the first sentence in this article: "Several aviators have been claimed as the first to fly a powered aeroplane" (my emphasis). The argument I make in this post is that sufficient sourcing exists under the rubric "have been claimed" to include Vuia in this article. See the WP Vuia article, noting the sources: Chanute, Orna, Gibbs-Smith ("Hops and Flights"), Mola and Romanian Academy Library. A day ago I made a spelling correction to Vuia's name after another editor entered him in the list, but the entry was reverted. So, I take this opportunity now to argue that Vuia should be included in this article, because adequate sourcing exists that meets the condition stated in the lede. DonFB (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

John Stringfellow

Why is John Stringfellow's powered flight in 1848 not mentioned in this article? There are details on his Wikipedia page John Stringfellow Secondus2 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Probably because, as his bio states, he only ever flew unmanned scale models, indoors and only short distances. - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)