Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Biographical details (to begin with)

Is there any other source for the section "Early life and career" but Whitehead himself? For example, citation [4] points at http://www.aerofiles.com/bio_w.html#whitehead which claims that he met Otto Lilienthal himself. If this is true it should of course be included in the article. On the other hand, Whitehead also claimed he had went to England to study Maxim's machine, and when he arrived in USA he met with Langley and other notables etc. Considering such claims, I find even low-key statements such as his boyhood fascination with birds doubtful. Hexmaster (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I added another reference to the Early Life/Career section, from a somewhat authoritative website maintained by a Whitehead family descendant. By consensus, the most active editors of this article accept that website as a source. I have never seen any mention that Whitehead claimed to have visited Maxim or Langley. No such claim is made in this article. Earlier versions of this article mentioned the claim that he visited Lilienthal, but that has been removed. DonFB (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done DonFB

I have not seen this article for more than two months. Now I must say that I am happy to see that it is still in good shape. I have some comments. Note that we live in an era when authorities are bit by bit losing their power and now it is no longer enough to refer to the authority of for example academic authors or institutions like the Smithsonian. If they can not argue successfully for their views people will increasingly listen to the side with the best arguments, and they have an ever decreasing belief in authorities. This started a long time ago and the process is still in progress. Around the year 1500 the pope started to lose power and people started thinking for themselves instead. The unreserved belief in authorities started to wither away, but this process took hundreds of years and is still in progress. This could hopefully influence this article too. Those who think that their authority is enough so they do not have to put forward good arguments for their views are no longer trusted blindly as they were earlier in the history. As people in general have less and less trust in traditional authorities and want to make up their minds themselves, based on the available evidence, we should make it easier for them, by isolating the views of the traditional authorities and their little evidence on one side and clearly show the difference between that side and the side that has very little traditional authority but a lot better arguments. As before I support DonFB. Even if we have had our conflicts now and then we have worked together on this article in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere for long periods of time. Roger4927 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems in the article

This sentence in the lead:"Afterward, no press reports of any more powered flights by him were published, and he made no additional such claims." is wrong. Read through reference 3 and you will find that Stanley Beach wrote an article in 1903 about GW testing a very lightweight 6 hp motor with propeller mounted on a tri-plane glider, successfully flying. The article said that he could have flown higher but for safety reasons GW stayed close to the ground.

This sentence in the lead:"Research in the 1960s and 70s, and pro-Whitehead books in 1966 and 1978 led to renewed examination and dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars.[2]" is unbalanced. The events described in the beginning of the sentence led both to a renewed and increased belief that GW really flew years before the Wrights, and a renewed dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars.

Reporting only the second result without reporting the first result makes the sentence unbalanced. The reason for the new "dismissal of the claims by aviation scholars" was that a lot of people, researchers, institutions and publications made new and amplified claims about GW and his pre-Wrights motorized flights. It is unbalanced and illogical to say that aviation scholars dismissed the result of these new investigations without also reporting that these new investigations resulted in a renewed support for GW's flights. Aviation scholars would have no reason to dismiss the results of these new investigations if these investigations had shown that GW never flew. Aviation scholars would have no reason to counter the widespread renewed belief that GW flew years before the Wrights if such a belief had not been created by these new investigations.

So the lead should be rewritten so it tells the reader that these new investigations had two results. 1: A renewed and increased belief that GW actually made motorized flights years in 1901, 1902 and 1903. 2: A renewed dismissal of these beliefs by aviation scholars. Roger4927 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with this sentence is that it does not explain to the reader who made this new "Research in the 1960s and 70s". Was it research made by the aviation scholars?, as this sentence could mean. Or was the research made by somebody else? If so, who? It wouldn't cost much space to mention William O'Dwyer, a reserve U.S. Air Force major, and the organisation CAHA, for example.

It would, of course, not be possible to mention all these people and companies in the lead, but they should be mentioned in the article, in a section about the investigations in the 1960s and 70s:

Angelo "Mike" Cartabiano (left), retired R&D and flight safety engineer for Sikorsky and Arling "Pud" Schmidt (right), mass properties engineer for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, and Herb Kelley, whose geometry—fading angles process—used by the Pentagon in WW II, was reported to be very reliable. the volunteered services of an engineer at Sikorsky's helicopter firm, Irving Burger, to draw the first set of plans along with a three-view drawing. Ken Terry (left), an R&D industrial engineer who studied nuclear submarines under Admiral Rickover, and Pratt & Whitney's Wes Gordeuk (right), discuss the design of Whitehead's engines and propellers. silk to cover the wings was made by Kanebo Silk in Osaka, Japan, but the cost was borne by the entire Japanese Silk Manufacturers Association because Whitehead used Japanese silk in 1900 to 1908 on his wings. further studies by engineers in Germany. Fritz Brüder, a mechanical engineer. Andrew Kosch.

Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association's (CAHA) and its vice president, Harold "Hal" Dolan, conducted a lot of research, finding and interviewing many old citizens of Bridgeport, even those who had moved to other parts of USA. CAHA is now known as the New England Air Museum.

Mentioning all these experts in their fields would balance the mentioning of the names of the scholars who dismissed the result of their work. Roger4927 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to point out that Beach published about GW after the Herald article. I think the lead could be changed, either by dropping the 'no further press' reports, or by saying something like, 'no further reports in mass circulation newspapers...'

I don't see a need for the lead to say, "increased belief that GW really flew," but if it did say that, a reference would be needed. The important point, already in the lead, is: aviation scholars again dismissed the claims. The word "claims" tells the reader that some people claimed the flights were real.

The article could include a brief summary in the Replica section about the experts who did research for the replica, but I would object to the amount of detail shown in the suggestion above. Also, it's still not clear to me if those experts helped Kosch, or helped the Germans. I do not agree that all their names should be mentioned. They were technical experts, not aviation history scholars. The article already has "balance" by specifically naming O'Dwyer, Kosch and Randolph on the pro-GW side.

Note that the article already mentions the O'Dwyer and CAHA interviews of surviving witnesses. That information is in the Witnesses section.

You could write your suggested changes to the lead and the Replica section here in Discussion as a way to reach consensus. DonFB (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I will take some time to formulate suggestions and references for changes. Roger4927 (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

About 1903

These two sentences in the lead, "He personally claimed credit for the feat, and he and eyewitnesses said he made several other powered flights that year and in 1902. Afterward, no press reports of any more powered flights by him were published, and he made no additional such claims." can be replaced with "He personally claimed credit for the feat, and he and eyewitnesses said he made several other powered flights in 1901 and 1902. Stanley Beach wrote an article about how Gustave Whitehead made motorized flights in 1903."

That change makes the lead shorter, and easier to read. (Formulations which indirectly refers to information in preceeding sentences like "that year" instead of "in 1901" make the text harder to read. Linguistic experts may think that such formulations are more elegant, but we should remember that we write for readers who are spread over a wide spectrum of reading and comprehension skills, from skilled readers of Shakespeare's sonets to people who have learned English as a second or third language. There is no reason to complicate it for the reader with indirect formulations, especially when the direct formulation actually is shorter.)

In the article we should add a short section about 1903 placed after the sections: Pittsburgh 1899, Connecticut 1901 and Connecticut 1902.

Reference from http://web.archive.org/web/20060618013444/http://flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff6.asp

"The September 19, 1903, Scientific American full-page report by its aeronautical editor Stanley Yale Beach told of Whitehead making powered flights in what had been his triplane glider, which also predates the flights made at Kitty Hawk the following December! Beach reported on page 204 in the September 19, 1903, Scientific American edition: "… By running with the machine against the wind after the motor had been started, the aeroplane was made to skim along above the ground at heights of from 3 to 16 feet for a distance, without the operator touching, of about 350 yards. It was possible to have traveled a much longer distance, without the operator touching terra firma, but for the operator's desire not to get too far above it. Although the motor was not developing its full power, owing to the speed not exceeding 1,000 R.P.M., it developed sufficient to move the machine against the wind …. Having proven that a less powerful motor will do the work, Mr. Whitehead is now constructing one of 6 horsepower which will weigh between 25 and 30 pounds …." The engine shown in the September 1903 article was the engine exhibited by Whitehead at the Second Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America in December 1906 that was shown in the photo between the Curtiss and Wright engines." Roger4927 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead motorized flights a few feet above the ground in a triplane machine originally designed as a glider." The lead should not introduce Beach by name, because the readers won't know who he is. He is introduced by name later in the article. The source you quoted does not say exactly when these flights were made--not even what year--but the publication date (Sept. 1903) makes the point that the flights, whenever they (supposedly) happened, occurred before December 1903.DonFB (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What about a formulation which is a little more specific, like this:

Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead making motorized flights, 3-16 feet above the ground of about 350 yards, in a triplane machine originally designed as a glider.

Without giving some numbers the reader will not understand the importance of this sentence. If it was a hop for 2 feet above the ground and the hop was 10 feet long, why even mention it in the lead?

We can go into more detail in a section simply called 1903. Roger4927 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This new sentence gives more detail about the experiments than the lead gives about the 1901 reported flight, a much more important event. And, the details are repeated in the new 1903 section. I suggest the lead only very briefly mention the 1903 events and save the details for the 1903 section:

"...other powered flights in 1901 and 1902. Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead making motorized flights in a triplane originally designed as a glider. Afterward, he made no more claims of powered flight and publicity faded for his aeronautical efforts, which lasted from about 1897 to 1911. He lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back..." DonFB (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the wording "Afterward, he made no more claims of powered flight" because we can not know this with full certainty. I suggest a shorter formulation, like this: "...other powered flights in 1901 and 1902. Scientific American magazine published an article in September 1903 about Whitehead making motorized flights in a triplane originally designed as a glider. After 1903 publicity faded for his aeronautical efforts, which lasted from about 1897 to 1911. He lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back..." Roger4927 (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection. DonFB (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Roger4927 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1903

The September 19, 1903, Scientific American full-page report by its aeronautical editor Stanley Yale Beach told of Whitehead making powered flights in what had been his triplane glider. "By running with the machine against the wind after the motor had been started, the aeroplane was made to skim along above the ground at heights of from 3 to 16 feet for a distance, without the operator touching, of about 350 yards. It was possible to have traveled a much longer distance, without the operator touching terra firma, but for the operator's desire not to get too far above it. Although the motor was not developing its full power, owing to the speed not exceeding 1,000 R.P.M., it developed sufficient to move the machine against the wind." The engine shown in the September 1903 article was the engine exhibited by Whitehead at the Second Annual Exhibit of the Aero Club of America in December 1906 that was shown in the photo between the Curtiss and Wright engines.

By calling this section 1903 we are not saying that this happened in 1903, which is, of course, a reasonable assumption, we are only saying that this article in Scientific American was published in September 1903. Thereby we avoid making an unverified assumption. We leave it up to the reader to decide for himself what he wants to assume based on the fact that this article was published September 19, 1903. Roger4927 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This addition seems ok. DonFB (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As we agree about this I added the 1903 section. Roger4927 (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Researchers and scholars

I would like to expand note 2, which is very sparse and omits most of the people involved in the Whitehead research into something like this:

Stella Randolph, author, assisted by aviation history buff Harvey Phillips in the 1930s, Harvard University economics professor John B. Crane, research 1935-1949, Albert Zahm research 1911-1945. Research 1963 and forward, William O'Dwyer, a reserve U.S. Air Force major in coperation with Stella Randolph, 9315th USAF Reserve Squadron in Stratford, Connecticut, Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association's (CAHA), Harold Dolan, a Sikorsky Aircraft engineer and vice president/secretary of the CAHA, Andy Kosch, aviation writer Ted Basche, Irving Burger, an engineer at Sikorsky's helicopter firm, Boeing Vertol mass properties engineer Arling "Pud" Schmidt, Pratt & Whitney's Wes Gordeuk, Ken Terry, an R&D industrial engineer, Frank Delear, a retired public relations director of Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford, Connecticut, Georg K. Weissenborn, a professor of German language at the University of Toronto. Flugpionier-Gustav-Weisskopf-Museum in Leutershausen, Germany, and German engineers engaged by the museum.

Note that I have divided the research into two historical periods, 1930-1949, and 1963 and forward.

I would like to divide the scholars who dismissed the result of the research by time too. Before 1961 we have Gibbs-Smith, and the Smithsonian? and Orville Wright (scholar?), who dismissed the work of the first research period. The research from 1963 and forward was dismissed by Tom Crouch, Fred Howard, Lewis Chmiel, William F. Trimble and Walter J. Boyne. Note that at least the first three, Tom Crouch, Fred Howard and Lewis Chmiel, are Wright brothers biographers or working for the wright-brothers.org.

Note that the article at http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Gustav_Whitehead.htm is not signed by an author other than www.wright-brothers.org, but it says at the end: "Our thanks to Lewis Chmiel who provided much of the research for this page."

Note also that the title of the article: "The Case for Gustave Whitehead" is very misleading, as the article does its best to discredit Gustave Whitehead. For example it refers only to the negative comments Stanley Y. Beach and John J. Dvorak had to say after they had gotten angry at Whitehead and the article says nothing about how John J. Dvorak earlier praised Whitehead as an engine builder and Stanley Y. Beach earlier had written articles about Whitehead's motorized flights.

As I couldn't find more than a few references on the web to either Lewis Chmiel or Louis Chmiel I searched for his companion Nick Engler and found this: http://quest.nasa.gov/people/bios/aero/englern.html Who I Am and What I Do Aviation Archaeology is a multidisciplinary field; therefore, working as the Director and Chief Builder of "The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company" I wear many hats. I am a historian, researching the design, construction, and flying of pioneer Wright aircraft. I am an aircraft builder, supervising the recreation of Wright gliders and airplanes. I am an aeronautical engineer, evaluating the flight characteristics of these old aircraft, and I am a communicator, speaking and writing to share the incredible adventure that was the birth of aviation.

The probability that Nick Engler, who founded and is director of "The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company" is working closely together with two different people named Lewis Chmiel and Louis Chmiel is practically zero. Lewis Chmiel and Louis Chmiel must be the same person.

So it seems reasonable to assume that both Nick Engler and his companion Lewis (Louis) Chmiel work for "The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company" and they both do the best they can to discredit Gustave Whitehead. In conclusion they say: Gustave Whitehead could not have flown, Gustave Whitehead did not fly, and even if he did fly it would not change the history of aviation, it would be "nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation".

The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II. The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying." Roger4927 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

William F. Trimble. Professor. B.A., University of Colorado has published 6 books, mainly about naval aircraft from Glenn Curtiss to 1960. The title of his book "Wings for the Navy: A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917-1956" is showing his main interest and the time period he has researched. He belongs to the same generation as Gibbs-Smith. They were both completely unaware of the Whitehead research made from 1963 and forward.

Walter J. Boyne is a former director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Two of his books: (1987) The Smithsonian Illustrated History of Flight (1988) The Smithsonian Book of Flight for Young People.

So all the scholars mentioned in the article are either such which published their books before 1961, or tightly connected to the Smithsonian or dedicated Wright brothers supporters.Roger4927 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't object to adding Crane, DeLear and Weissenborn. I do object to adding the various engineers, who I do not believe have published any historical research about GW. I think the note should include only names, not a long list of their titles and works (the same as the scholar list). DonFB (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A list of names without titles, who they worked for, what possible loyalty they had, when they wrote what they wrote is meaningless to the reader. It will be as informative as Bill Johnson, John Brown, Will Smith, Bob Ericson, etc...

I would like to see a timeline, not graphic but in text, of how this case developed, with news reports, Richard Howell, written articles by Beach and others from the early years. How a young author was assisted by an early aviation buff, how the research resulted in a number of affidavits, a book was written, prof Crane made his own investigation, Whitehead's son was interviewed, an article was written, the story was spread, Orville felt it necessary to write his article. The actions of the Smithsonian over time, mentioning Langley and his ambitions to become the inventor of the airplane, which explains the attitude of the Smithsonian towards Whitehead during the first decade of the 20th century. The dismissal by two scholars before 1961. New research started in 1963, CAHA did a lot of work under the leadership of retired Officer O'Dwyer and Harold Dolan, a Sikorsky Aircraft engineer and vice president/secretary of the CAHA, the attitude and actions of the Smithsonian was revealed, more research showed how Beach changed side, how Dickie hated Whitehead, how officials at the Smithsonian did everything they could to hinder and delay the investigations... A scholar who worked at the Smithsonian dismissed the new findings. Wright brothers biographers and devotees (scholars) dismissed the new findings. This new section could be called Timeline and incorporate a lot of what is now in Research and Controversy sections. Roger4927 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Such a story, told in chronological order, and revealing the involved person's loyalties and qualifications would help the reader to understand what has happened during 115 years until today.

Can we really call Nick Engler, who founded and is director of "The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company" a scholar? A quick study of his web site reveals that he is a Wright brothers devotee, using a lot of his time to write about The Wright Brothers, creating an organisation to write about the Wright Brothers, keeping a big web site about the Wright Brothers. We can probably not solve the mystery with Nick Engler's two friends and partners Lewis Chmiel and Louis Chmiel,but we don't have to. We can simply point out that Nick Engler and his partner Lewis Chmiel have written a web page about GW which discredits GW, and Nick Engler and his partner Louis Chmiel have published the quote which says that even if it can be shown that GW actually flew it wouldn't mean anything anyway. So the reader can draw his own conclusions about Nick Engler's two partners with very similar names. Roger4927 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think all this information is already in the article and easily understood, in my opinion. DonFB (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a lot about the involved researchers and scholars which is not revealed, like their titles and qualifications, what kind of organisation or institution they work for, and there is a lack of some kind of timeline, so people can see what investigations the two older scholars dismissed before 1961, and by the way, one of them had ties to the Smithsonian which published at least one of his books, and for example that Walter J. Boyne is a former director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. He wrote 40 books about aviation while working for the Smithsonian. And who Nick Engler and his two partners are. If we connect the quote from them with the web page about GW they have written it is easier for the reader to draw conclusions about which side they are loyal to. Roger4927 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Loyalties

Richard Howell was a good journalist who had no reason to invent a story which was so improbable and filled with details so it would be difficult to invent such a story, the story was also supported by a number of witnesses of that flight and other flights the same summer. Stella Randolph was a young woman who wanted to become author, she didn't know what to write about. She happened to meet an old aviation buff who told her the story about Whitehead. She found it interesting and did some investigations, read Howells article, collected a number of affidavits, and drew her conclusion from the collected evidence and published her book. Prof Crane shows all the characteristics of an impartial historian who did not hesitate to change his initial view when more evidence convinced him of the opposite view.

The Smithsonian is a much more complicated part in the case. During the period 1900-1910 the Smithsonian defended and struggled to make Langley to the inventor of the airplane, that's why they could not approach Whitehead openly or acknowledge him as a flight pioneer. Later they were occupied with the struggle Langley with the help of Glenn Curtiss competed with the Wright brothers. Langley lost that struggle. But then the Smithsonian wanted a replica of the Wright airplane so they had to be supportive towards Orville, and after 1948 they were hindered by contract to mention Whitehead. So the Smithsonian were hindered from acknowledging Whitehead, for different reasons for different time periods. And today they cannot admit that they did wrong earlier and US-American patriotism is probably a factor today, for why the Smithsonian can not be impartial.

Orville Wright was obviously not impartial, so he could not admit that Whitehead had flown before the Wright brothers. The same reason is valid for all devoted Wright supporters.

CAHA, O'Dwyer, Kosch, Harold Dolan, a Sikorsky Aircraft engineer and vice president/secretary of the CAHA, and other modern researchers had no reason to support either side, but the mass of evidence they collected convinced them that Whitehead had flown in 1901.

So we find that most of the researchers had no reason to take side with Whitehead or Wright, but most of the so called scholars had strong reasons to side with the Wright side, or published their conclusions before all the research from 1963 and forward had started. I personally learned in school that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903 and had no reason to doubt that until I saw a short program about Whitehead on the Discovery channel. I became interested and turned to wikipedia to find out more, and after years of study I must admit that I had to change my earlier view. Considering the mass of evidence for Whitehead flights before November 1903, and the lack of evidence and rational reasoning to the contrary, it seems very likely that Whitehead made motorized flights before the Wright brothers. Roger4927 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am very familiar by now with your opinions and conclusions on the matter. DonFB (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom D. Crouch. Senior Curator, Division of Aeronautics. National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution. Works by Tom D. Crouch: The Bishop's Boys: A Life of Wilbur and Orville Wright: "Visionary and practical at the same time, the Wright brothers invented the airplane in a typically American fashion, and their story is a typically American one--which is to say, unlike the story of anyone else. Technically brilliant, financially shrewd, these two lifelong bachelors came relatively late to the problem of manned flight, but then attacked the issue without preconceived notions or elaborate theories; in the end, they succeeded where thousands of others had failed, perhaps because they had abandoned the theoretical. As Tom Crouch points out in his biography, airplanes flew for a quarter of a century before scientists could explain just why wings worked. Able to fly but not exactly able to explain how--what could be more American than that?

In fact, as THE BISHOP’S BOYS details, Wilbur and Orville Wright were quintessentially American, both in their career and in their family. Their father was an independent, even combative clergyman. As the dominant force in their lives, he inspired them to rely upon themselves and their family, and to be honest but wary in their dealings with the outside world. Indeed, the brothers found it more difficult to protect their airplane than perfect it; their suspicious, even hostile encounters with rivals and the public were, in a large part, the legacy of the battling bishop.

The story of the Wrights is an intriguing one, both personally and scientifically, and Crouch’s biography of them is excellent in both respects. Although the brothers are a central part of American folklore, until this book they remained elusive and shadowy figures, dim characters in faded photographs. Crouch brings them to life, places them and their work in the middle of their times, and makes the reader feel a part of the American scene as a new century dawned. It is an impressive achievement."

Tom D. Crouch works for the Smithsonian, is a patriotic US-American and admires the Wright brothers.

Don't you think it would be more fair to the reader to tell them that Tom D. Crouch works for the Smithsonian and is a Wright brothers biographer than to just tell the reader "Tom D. Crouch, a scholar"? As the article tells the reader about all the strange attitudes and actions of the Smithsonian, and the critical quote about the Smithsonian from the prof Georg K. Weissenborn and O'Dwyer's views on the Smithsonian, it would be fair to the reader to tell the reader which of the scholars work for the Smithsonian?

That's why it is important to give the reader the most basic facts about the involved people, what are their qualifications, who do they work for, in what era of time did they draw their conclusions, to give the reader a chance to draw some conclusions about the loyalties and qualifications of both the researchers and the scholars who dismissed their work and their conclusions.

Gibbs-Smith, for example, published his last book in 1960, so he made his judgement totally unaware of all the research made in modern times, beginning in 1963. Roger4927 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is disrespectful and confusing to write only the name of a researcher or a scholar. Do you mean Tom D. Crouch, the plummer in Lincoln, Nebraska, or Tom D. Crouch, the prisoner for life in the San Quentin State Prison? The proper way to list these scholars is like this:

Tom D. Crouch. Senior Curator, Division of Aeronautics. National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution and a Wright brothers biographer. Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. William F. Trimble. Professor. B.A., University of Colorado. Author of Admiral William A. Moffett: Architect of Naval Aviation (Smithsonian, 1994). Nick Engler, Founder, Director and Chief Builder of "The Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company". Fred Howard, a Wright brothers biographer. Roger4927 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Only Wright Brothers biographers care about Whitehead. Everybody else does not care. Binksternet (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If only Wright Brothers biographers (and people employed by the Smithsonian) care about Whitehead and write about him it would be dishonest to hide this fact from the reader. And it is very unusual and disrespectful to mention people without giving their titles. These people are not just any Tom, Dick and Harry, they have respected positions in revered institutions and they are known for a certain occupation, so let's list them with their full titles and what they are most known for. Roger4927 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Revered"! That's humorous, coming from a Whitehead-first proponent. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

To understand the role of the Smithsonian in this we have to consider the situation beginning around 1898. Samuel Pierpont Langley attempted to make a working piloted heavier-than-air aircraft. He built a rotating arm (functioning similar to a wind tunnel) and made larger flying models powered by miniature steam engines. His first success came on May 6, 1896 when his Number 5 unpiloted model flew nearly 3/4 of a mile after a catapult launch from a boat on the Potomac River. The distance was ten times longer than any previous experiment with a heavier-than-air flying machine,[2] demonstrating that stability and sufficient lift could be achieved in such craft. On November 11 that year his Number 6 model flew more than 5000 feet.

In 1898, based on the success of his models, Langley received a War Department grant of $50,000 and $20,000 from the Smithsonian to develop a piloted airplane, which he called an "Aerodrome". He was well positioned to become the father of aviation. He had a fully working motorized airplane and there were only a few minor mechanical snags to fix before he could definitely be described and honoured by aviation historians as the inventor of the motorized, heavier than air, airplane, the undisputed father of aviation.

He didn't even have to wait for other historians to write about him and give him the honor he so rightly deserved. The chief executive officer (CEO) of the Smithsonian is the Secretary, who is appointed by the Board of Regents. The Secretary of the Smithsonian has the privilege of the floor at the United States Senate. Secretaries of the Smithsonian: Samuel Pierpont Langley, 1887–1906. He was like the pope of science and technology in USA. He and all the scientists who worked for him could write the official history about him themselves.

But before he could get his airplane up into the air he read a very worrying article in the newspapers. According to the article a poor German immigrant had flown half a mile August 14 1901. Langley sent out people to check up this story, and what they reported made it even worse. People in Bridgeport said that Whitehead had flown three more times on that same day, the longest flight was one and a half miles, and people in Bridgeport said that Whitehead had made several other motorized flight along the streets of Bridgeport during the summer before this date.

Langley was very confused and worried. What was going on? Was this a big conspiracy, involving a lot of people in Bridgeport? Or was it real, would the victory and fame he had been so sure of be snatched away from him when he had been so close to the goal line? He heard that Whitehead would exhibit his airplane in Atlanta. The Smithsonian could not approach Whitehead openly, as this would result in an official recognition of Whitehead so he sent an assistant with clear orders, find out as much as possible about this airplane, and especially the motor, but don't let Whitehead know about our interest in his airplane. The assistant had to wait for hours behind some bushes until Whitehead walked away from his airplane so the assistant could walk up to the airplane and inspect it. He did not have time to make any notes so he tried to remember as much as possible and then he quickly walked away to a place where he could sit down and write a report and draw some sketches from his memory.

He returned to the Smithsonian and reported back to Langley. Langley and his experts discussed the report and decided what to write in the report that would be filed for the future. They decided to write that the assistant reported that the machine did not appear to be airworthy. And Manly stated in the official paper that he believed the claims made for the machine were "fraudulent." They filed this report and decided to simply ignore Whitehead, maybe he would be forgotten and Langley would have the chance to regain the initiative and become the father of aviation after all.

But a few years later a new threat to Langley appeared, the Wright brothers, and Langley had still not been able to make his airplane work as he had expected. What followed was a long struggle between Langley and the Wright brothers, but luckily the strategy towards Whitehead seemed to work, as long as the people at the Smithsonian continued to ignore Whitehead and dismiss his flights as a hoax. Around 1925 the Smithsonian had to finally admit defeat and recognize the Wright brothers as the winners. But now it became important to get a replica of the Wright flyer to display at the Smithsonian, so the Smithsonian had to support the Wright brothers, and the tradition to ignore Whitehead was still successful. In 1948 the Smithsonian finally got the Wright flyer. They had to sign a contract forbidding them to ever mention any other motorized flyer before the Wright brothers, but they had already done this for many years, so they just had to continue this tradition to keep the Wright flyer on exhibition.

That's why the people at the Smithsonian have several historical reasons and a long standing tradition of ignoring Whitehead or call him a hoax. The Wright brothers biographers do, of course, have similar reasons to ignore Whitehead or call him a hoax.

The power of the Smithsonian to control and influence the writing of the official aviation history can be illustrated by a quote from Fred Howard. "However, the Curtiss flights emboldened the Smithsonian to display the Aerodrome in its museum as "the first man-carrying aeroplane in the history of the world capable of sustained free flight". Fred Howard, extensively documenting the controversy, wrote: "It was a lie pure and simple, but it bore the imprimatur of the venerable Smithsonian and over the years would find its way into magazines, history books, and encyclopedias, much to the annoyance of those familiar with the facts." (Howard, 1987)."

So "Revered" is not humorous, it is a fact, which has great significance for how the official history of aviation has been written. Exactly because the Smithsonian is such a revered and venerable institution it has an immense influence over what is written as the official history of aviation, and because of that it is important to identify the "scholars" who are working for the Smithsonian or are influenced by the Smithsonian, and how the Smithsonian has been treating the truth in the past and still does. Roger4927 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Some people who read the above post (beginning: "To understand the role of the Smithsonian", ending: "in the past and still does") might conceivably think it's a sincere statement about history, even though the text is only part of a Wikipedia Discussion and is not part of a referenced Wikipedia article.

I will use this space to point out that the following quotations, taken from the above post, are a collection of pure fantasies, misstatements, and mere personal assumptions about the actions, inner thoughts, and motivations of the historical persons who are named, and that these fantasies, misstatements and assumptions spring only from the fevered imagination of the writer:

"had a fully working motorized airplane"

"he read a very worrying article"

"what they reported made it even worse"

"Langley was very confused and worried"

"the victory and fame he had been so sure of"

"snatched away from him when he had been so close"

"exhibit his airplane in Atlanta"

"The Smithsonian could not approach Whitehead openly, as this would result in an official recognition of Whitehead"

"don't let Whitehead know about our interest in his airplane"

"The assistant had to wait for hours behind some bushes until Whitehead walked away"

"He did not have time to make any notes so he tried to remember as much as possible and then he quickly walked away to a place where he could sit down and write a report and draw some sketches from his memory"

"Langley and his experts discussed the report and decided what to write"

"They decided to write that the assistant reported that the machine did not appear to be airworthy"

"They filed this report and decided to simply ignore Whitehead, maybe he would be forgotten and Langley would have the chance to regain the initiative and become the father of aviation after all"

"What followed was a long struggle between Langley and the Wright brothers"

"Around 1925 the Smithsonian had to finally admit defeat and recognize the Wright brothers"

"now it became important to get a replica of the Wright flyer"

To reiterate: these are fantasies, assumptions and misstatements by the writer.

A few comments:

The Smithsonian, but not Langley, did take part in a long struggle with Orville Wright over the issue of credit to the Wright Brothers. Langley himself, having died in 1906, was never part of that controversy.

Whitehead exhibited his craft in Atlantic City, not Atlanta.

The Smithsonian did not "admit defeat" in 1925; it still held to its claims for Langley's Aerodrome. In 1942 the Smithsonian recanted its claims for the Aerodrome and published, for the first time, details of the many modifications that Curtiss made to the Aerodrome before he tested it in 1914.

The Smithsonian did not want a replica of the Wright Flyer. By the 1930s, when it faced bad publicity because of its policy, it wanted the real Wright Flyer.

Again, this is not a Wikipedia article, so the writer's sloppy misstatements of fact, as well as his fanciful concoctions of history, should be recognized as just that. Of course, if the writer has a shred of reference material, especially for words and phrases that describe the thoughts, feelings and actions of long-dead persons, like "worrying", "confused and worried", "worse", "sure of", "behind some bushes", and "snatched away", I would invite him to offer it. I would also advise the writer, as he has been told innumerable times before, that Wikipedia is not a platform for people to expound their pet theories, even in Discussion pages. DonFB (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can, of course, not know every detail of what really happened, nobody can, but to understand why the Smithsonian have behaved in such mysterious and frankly, sneaky way towards Whitehead over the years, we can try to understand the reasons that lie behind this behavior. My story above is just an example of what might lie behind the attitude of the Smithsonian visavi Whitehead.

Note I am not alone in strong criticism of the Smithsonian, Fred Howards words above is one example, Georg K. Weissenborn, a professor of German language at the University of Toronto and William O'Dwyer, a reserve U.S. Air Force major are also very critical towards the Smithsonian. And note how people at the Smithsonian have been acting. Paul E. Garber, a Smithsonian expert on early aircraft, Garber denied that a contract existed and said he "could never agree to such a thing." But then it is revealed such a contract exists. Jakab says that Whitehead never told his wife that he had flown, but in an interview she tells the journalist that he told her about it when he came home August 14 1901. Why did the Smithsonian continue for many decades repeating arguments from Orville Wright and Stanley Beach which they should have realized were faulty a long time ago?

Why didn't people from the Smithsonian approach Whitehead openly, at his home in Bridgeport, or at the exhibition in Atlantic City? After all, their task was to keep track of and investigate inventors of airplanes among other things. Why didn't the person from the Smithsonian walk up to Whitehead in Atlantic City and say: Hi, I come from the Smithsonian, we are very interested in your airplane, and especially in how the motor works. Can you explain that to me?

Why send an assistant to find out as much as possible about Whitehead's airplane, especially how the motor works, but without letting Whitehead know about this investigation? The most probable reason is that Whitehead was a threat to Langley's plans to become known as the inventor of the airplane.

When we see how the Smithsonian have acted in very devious and partial ways on many occasions, spread out over the whole 20th century we must consider if this is symptomatic of a basic fault of the the Smithsonian institution, its moral, its integrity as a scientific institution. And if there is something rotten in the land of Smithsonian, shouldn't we at least make it possible for our readers to know which "scholars" are connected to the Smithsonian?

On the other hand, if everything is okay with the Smithsonian, and all critical and suspicious people are wrong, shouldn't we publish the titles of the Smithsonian scholars anyway, because then it is an honor to be connected to the Smithsonian, and a connection to the Smithsonian is a reason for the reader to take that scholar's judgment seriously. So, no matter what we think about the Smithsonian, it is correct to write down the titles of the people who are or have been connected to this institution.

It makes sense to identify a scholar or an investigator as a curator of the aviation department of the Smithsonian, or as a Wright brothers biographer, a professor at a certain university or as a reserve U.S. Air Force major. That gives the reader a chance to understand what background and qualifications this person has and an opportunity to find out more about this author, and it gives the reader a chance to guess which loyalties this person has. Roger491127 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bits from archives

Herb Kelly should be spelled Herb Kelley.

http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1936/affidavit:_john_lesko_-_jan.html Mr. Whitehead flew his folding winged plane in August, 1902 on Fairfield Avenue, and again a little later at Gypsy Spring. Gypsy Spring was a part with a steep hill that would give the plane a good start.

Stanley Y Beach

A few excerpts from Beach's reports in Scientific American in 1906 and 1908 contradict Orville's version of Beach's beliefs about Whitehead.

Beach's reports referred to powered flights in 1901 by Whitehead in the issues of January 27, November 24 and December 15, 1906, and January 25, 1908. Included were these phrases: "Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes," "Whitehead's former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901," "A single blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photo of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight."

The last quote is from a long article by Beach on the first annual exhibit held by the newly formed Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The report appeared in Scientific American, January 27, 1906. Roger491127 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger491127, your quoted sentence from Scientific American, January 27, 1906, is far too selective. Highly selective and altered quotations can be misleading, and in this case it seems the misleading alterations were intentional. The following is how that section of the article by S. Y. Beach actually reads "No photographs of this or of larger man-carrying machines in flight were shown, nor has any trustworthy account of their reported achievements ever been published. A single blurred photograph of a large birdlike machine propelled by compressed air, and which was constructed by Whitehead in 1901, was the only other photograph besides that of Langley's machine of a motor-driven airplane in successful flight." So, the long-sought photo turns out to not be a photo of a Whitehead "man-carrying" machine in flight, after all, and the oft-repeated 'quotation' is revealed as edited and misleading. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian and GW - Relevance

I have a question which I hope Roger491127 will address: What is the relevance of the Smithsonian's response to GW (or any other institutions response to GW) - how does that response impact on whether or not GW "flew" ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

GW Article's Opening

The following phrase asserts a point in great dispute: "... where he designed and built early flying machines and engines to power them." To say that in that way is to say that GW's machines actually did fly and that his engines did power them. A more appropriate phrasing might be "... where he designed and built machines with which he intended to fly and engines intended to power them." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to the fray. I understand your point, and perhaps the wording should be modified in some way. From an "aesthetic" point of view, the use of "intended" twice in the suggested change seems a little less than graceful. Here's a question: do think it's inaccurate to call the large Aerodrome a "flying machine"? What about the Eole, the Avion, the Pearse, duTemple and Mozhaisky(sp) machines and the like? Each was intended to be a "flying machine". (Even the title of your website uses that phrase. :-) The actual achievement of all these machines is, of course, subject to debate. I am comfortable with the GW wording as it now stands, which denotes the broad idea of intent, and is followed by thorough discussion of actual achievement in the remainder of the introduction and in the article body. I just offer these as thoughts to consider, and as a possible guide to the aesthetics of the phrasing, but I don't disagree in principle with the point you're making. DonFB (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Binksternet and DonFB, nice to read you've been holding down the fort these past many months. DonFB, at the risk of being overly self-referential, on my site's FAQ page I've tried to distinguish the use of "flying machine" vs. "aeroplane/airplane" (http://www.flyingmachines.org/fmfaq.html#question2). I don't think stating such an explanation within the body of the text assists the article along its merry way. The phrase "flying machines and engines to power them" would, to most people (as I see it, anyway), convey a notion of flight. I accept your "aesthetic" point and appreciate your acceptance of my point. I'll suggest another formulation for your consideration "... where he designed and built early flying machines and engines meant to power them." As I read that simple change, it sufficiently softens the apparent assertion of flight while preserving the aesthetics.

To answer your question, DonFB, yes, the Eole, Avion, Large Aerodrome, and so on, were all intended to be "flying machines." As I read it, it's not the term "flying machine," when applied to GW's constructions, that creates a problem. It's the conjunction of that term with "engines to power them" that appears to express support for the claims made by and for Whitehead.

I'll suggest another change, instead of "Whitehead's reputation rests largely on a detailed local newspaper article..." I would state "Claims for Whitehead rest largely on a local newspaper article..." GW's reputation is quite apart from "The Article," indeed, his "reputation" is one element of the opposition to claims made on his behalf. Reading "The Article," many points which could have been detailed were left hanging in ambiguity: who wrote the article, the location where and time when the event (whatever it was) happened (if it happened at all), among several other significant items. I do not agree that "The Article" is "detailed." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with "...and engines meant to power them" and am also ok with "Claims for Whitehead...." Perhaps instead of "detailed," the newspaper article might be described as "extensive" or maybe just, "long". When I originally wrote "detailed," I wanted to imply that the article contained a fairly substantial amount of information and was not a brief summary, hence the GW claims/reputation resting largely upon it. DonFB (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made those two changes, adding "meant" and substituting "long" for "detailed." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Beach "quotes"

Why reference Frank Delear's article regarding the contents of S. Y. Beach's Scientific American articles, and not the articles themselves? As can be seen from what I've offered in the "Bits from archives" section, above, such quotes have been slanted and the contents and meaning abused to push the case for Whitehead. I suggest the full context and content of those Scientific American articles should be looked at before we include the abridged quotes from Delear or any other source. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gray, there should be no slanting or agendas within these pages (idealistic, i know). Can we set up a forum/debate for this topic?MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Carroll, do you mean the quotes in the "Stanley Beach" subsection, or elsewhere? Namely: "Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903..." and, "Whitehead's former bat-like machine..." and, "A single blurred photograph..." I haven't tried to research the original magazine quotes, but you apparently have access to the material, as shown in your comments above in Bits from Archives. I have no problem if you edit the Beach subsection, either to explain the "blurred photograph" quote, or to eliminate it entirely. As for the other quotes, my preference would be to retain them, unless or until more research of the original (or other) sources shows a need to explain, expand or eliminate them. DonFB (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the "blurred photograph" quote again, comparing it with yours shown above. The edited version now in the GW article is grossly misleading without its "compressed air" phrase (and no elipsis to boot) and should get the boot, or be explained. Explaining it might serve to correct misunderstandings that it may have caused either in this article, or in other sources if it was similarly edited. But dropping it from this article is ok with me. DonFB (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll check the other partial quotations (other than January 27, 1906) and let you know whether they also have problems. It will be perhaps a week until I pull out the Scientific Americans and make a comparison. The problem with explaining the issue is length - the article would be a very lengthy one, indeed, if we explored all these sorts of issues. Although, perhaps, there is a serviceable way of being succinct and clear and informative about what appears to me to be an endemic and rather large set of such problems. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article doesn't necessarily have to go out of its way to keep and explain problematic quotes--that would just bloat the article more. Explanations could be used, or not, depending whether editors agree the quotations are helpful, or not, in the article. DonFB (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are two full and unabridged quotes from Scientific American (the January 6, 1908 quote is on its way), it is easily seen how distorted the purported quotes drawn from these two articles are.

Scientific American, November 24, 1906, p. 379, col. 1; article about Santos-Dumont’s 1906 flight in his Santos-Dumont 14-bis biplane...“In his enthusiasm the Brazilian aeronaut forgets also that at least three experimenters in America (Herring in 1898, Whitehead in 1901, and Wright brothers in 1903), Maxim in England (1896), and Ader in France (1897), have already flown for short distances with motor-driven aeroplanes, and yet no really practical machine of the kind has as yet been produced and demonstrated.” vs. offered quotation “Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes,”

Scientific American, December 15, 1906, p. 447, col. 3; article titled “The Second Annual Exhibition Of The Aero Club Of America” “The body framework of Gustave Whitehead’s latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic-tired, ball-bearing wire wheels and containing a 3-cylinder, 2-cycle, air-cooled motor of 15 horse-power, direct connected to a 6-foot propeller placed in front. This machine ran along the road at a speed of 25 miles an hour in tests made with it last summer. When held stationary, it produced a thrust of 75 pounds. The engine is a 4¼ x 4 of an improved type. Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat-machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901. He is at present engaged in building a 100-horse-power, 8-cylinder gasoline motor with which to propel his improved machine.” vs. offered quotation “Whitehead’s former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901.”

The view of the Scientific American writer, as can readily be seen, is that short flights had been made by a number of people prior to Whitehead, including Maxim, Ader and Herring, but that these short flights did not constitute flights in a "practical machine of the kind" because none had "yet been produced and demonstrated." In addition, it will be noted that the Scientific American writer does not say GW was aboard the machine, but that short flights had been made "with" the machine. The writer also does not state that the "short flights" were made under power, other than "the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels" - the mention of a (single) 6-ft. propeller "placed in front" relates to GW's "latest bat-like aeroplane" not "his former bat-like machine" used in 1901. There is no mention of propellers being used on the 1901 winged automobile-type machine.

Stating, for example, that Langley had made powered heavier-than-air winged flights exceeding a half-mile in length during 1896 with his Aerodrome No.5 and No.6 would be a true statement, but it would not mean Langley had flown aboard them. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Carroll, thanks, good stuff. My first reaction is annoyance/anger at the slippery way the quotes were manipulated, without using any elipsis or other method to accurately show the context. Having said that, I don't think the full quotes overturn the impression which the truncated quotes give that GW made some sort of flight(s) in a powered machine before 1903.

In the first passage (which mentions Santos Dumont), the quotation uses the word "with" (not "in" or "aboard") while making reference to several other experimenters who all were aboard their craft. I don't see anything in the quote which implies that GW was an exception, or questions or doubts whether he was aboard his craft. (Not sure about Maxim; perhaps he was not aboard his machine, but his workers were.)

In the second passage (detailing GW's engines), the quotation says GW exhibited the engine that powered the wheels of the machine "with which he made a number of short flights in 1901". True, the quote does not say he displayed an engine which turned one or more propellers, or that the displayed engine enabled him to fly. But, as I read it, the quotation does not question that his machine flew. Also, from the context, it seems clear that the quote is talking about powered flight, not unpowered. The quote also uses the word "with" in the same way the earlier quote uses that word to describe the flights of Herring, Ader, Maxim and the Wrights, who all were aboard their machines (or in the case of Maxim, had his workers aboard).

It might be worthwhile to include or mention the quoted caveat:

"no really practical machine of the kind has as yet been produced and demonstrated" --to give the quotations a more balanced historical perspective. But this is only a thought for your consideration. I don't have a preference.

Interestingly, of course, that statement appeared in November 1906, more than a year after the Wrights did produce and demonstrate a practical machine. Furthermore, I believe Scientific American had already published an acknowledgement in the spring of 1906 that the Wrights had indeed demonstrated a practical solution. That acknowledgement was based on the Wrights' letter in March 1906 to the Aero Club of America, and SciAm's followup questionnaire, sent to witnesses named by the Wrights in their letter. (But all this historical byplay need not be put into the article.)

I'm open to discussion on how you might want the quotes to be presented more accurately, unless, of course, you feel they should excised--which would become a different sort of discussion. DonFB (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Scientific American article related to the Wrights and the 1905 Flyer appears in the same December 15, 1906 issue as the Aero CLub article cited above (p.442) and so the statement in the Aero Club article that a "practical machine of the kind" had not "yet been produced and demonstrated." is superseded by the Wright article. Yet, the point remains valid, I believe, the writer (I could concede that SYB wrote both of the quoted articles, as well as the S-D and Wright articles) writes this of S-D's flight in his 14-bis: "This time he flew against a slight breeze for a distance of 210 meters (689 feet), or a trifle over one-eighth of a mile." "M. Dumont made a sharp turn to the right, with the intention of describing a circle..." "... he shut off power and descended." There is no doubt that S-D is in and operating the machine.

To my view, the quotes offered by Roger and those quotes appearing in the "Stanley Beach" section of the GW article are extremely misleading, rather than simply being poor quotations. As such we ought to either explain at some length the truth and context of the much-circulated "quotes" or we ought to eliminate them. The "quotes" are heavily biased and misleading.

The underlying assertion in the GW matter is that he, GW, "flew" prior to the Wrights, not whether or not he lifted off in short hops in a winged automobile or built and used a glider prior to 1903. As GW's partisans assert the truth of the mangled "slippery" (I like that) quotes from Beach's articles, it must be noted that whatever Beach thought of what GW did, he believed Herring and Maxim and Ader did it before GW did it. So, the continuing assertion that GW was first to fly is severely undercut by the article from which that distorted quote was yanked and massaged.

It strikes me that if Beach's state of mind prior to his 1937 "recantation" had been that GW had been first to fly (and in 1901), he would have stated such explicitly. He did not. So, where is the recantation ?

As an aside, Maxim's "large apparatus" "Test Rig" lifted off, but was connected to, its track, with a passenger, during September 1893, and with Maxim and three others aboard at Bexley, on July 31, 1894.

Finally, DonFB, I sent a wiki e-mail to you on the 30th. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts:

Your wrote: "The underlying assertion in the GW matter is that he, GW, 'flew' prior to the Wrights, not whether or not he lifted off in short hops"

Response: I agree with your characterization of the "underlying assertion in the GW matter" as made by GW supporters. But I'm unclear why this is a problem for the Wikipedia article. The article, as it must, reports the pro-GW arguments and the opposing statements from the scholars.

You wrote: "whatever Beach thought of what GW did, he believed Herring and Maxim and Ader did it before GW did it."

Response: True--as shown by the SciAm quotation you provided above. But Beach's evident belief about predecessors to GW does not change what he said, apparently contradicting himself, about GW.

You wrote: "So, the continuing assertion that GW was first to fly..."

Response: Yes, that's what GW supporters want to claim, but to whatever extent the GW Wikipedia article communicates that belief, the article is just doing its job of reporting their minority view.

You wrote: "It strikes me that if Beach's state of mind prior to his 1937 "recantation" had been that GW had been first to fly (and in 1901), he would have stated such explicitly. He did not. So, where is the recantation ?"

Response: Again, the "first to fly" issue is a bit off-topic. The essence of the Beach issue is: the inconsistency between his early quotes in SciAm that credit GW with flights before 1903, and Beach's later quote that he does not believe GW ever got off the ground in a powered airplane. The discussion does not revolve around the loaded question of "first to fly". It is more narrowly focused.

I am open to the use of phrasing other than "recantation". But I think the apparent contradiction between the early and later Beach quotes remains, and is relevant to the controversy about GW. DonFB (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughtful, as always, DonFB. Two thoughts at this late hour 1) I cannot find an instance where SYB wrote or is quoted as saying that GW flew aboard one of his machines prior to the Wrights, which would seem to be a necessary predicate to some later recantation, and 2) the minority view certainly must be offered in the article, but I'm reluctant to include what are misrepresentations (beyond all reasonable doubt, in my view) as part of that minority view. Or, if included, then they are to be explained by presenting the original text vs. the altered text.

I suppose that we understand the meaning of the article quotes differently. I do not see, for instance, that SYB believes the information in the August 18, 1901, article to be true. When SYB (again, accepting that SYB is the writer) writes (referring to "larger man-carrying machines in flight") "...nor has any trustworthy account of their reported achievements ever been published." (Scientific American, January 27, 1906) he is dismissing the August 18, 1901, Sunday Herald article as not being "trustworthy," along with all other published accounts. How could "...nor has any trustworthy account of their reported achievements ever been published." be understood any differently ? It cannot be argued that SYB was unaware of the August 18, 1901, Sunday Herald article. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that Roger's facile manipulation of the quotes was intended to "concentrate" the emphasis and make the quotes look like a focused endorsement of GW flights. Despite that, the quotes, to me, still appear to state clearly that GW made powered flights "with" a machine. The use of the word "with" appears in quotes attributed to Beach two different times: first, when he refers to Ader, Maxim, Herring, GW and the Wrights making flights "with motor-driven aeroplanes"; and second, when he refers only to GW. Nothing in the quotes suggests the GW flights were not manned, in contrast to all the others, which were.

You characterize the quotes as "extremely misleading", "heavily biased" and "misrepresentations (beyond all reasonable doubt, in my view)", but I'm still trying to understand in what way you see them as such--aside from Roger's unacknowledged attempt to clean them up and eliminate "distracting" text.

You wrote: "I cannot find an instance where SYB wrote or is quoted as saying that GW flew aboard one of his machines prior to the Wrights". At the risk of repetition, my view is that the following two quotations are sufficiently clear:

"at least three experimenters in America (Herring in 1898, Whitehead in 1901, and Wright brothers in 1903), Maxim in England (1896), and Ader in France (1897), have already flown for short distances with motor-driven aeroplanes"

"Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat-machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901."

The following quote, which I don't think I had seen before, raises more questions about Beach's consistency when viewed in light of the two quotations immediately above:

"...nor has any trustworthy account of their reported achievements ever been published." (Scientific American, January 27, 1906)

We can certainly conclude that this quotation means Beach did not accept the Herald article as credible. I also agree that "It cannot be argued that SYB was unaware of the August 18, 1901, Sunday Herald article." As editors here, however, remember that we cannot state our personal conclusions about Beach's reaction to the article or our opinion that "it cannot be argued" that he saw it. I would not oppose using this quotation, but it would have to be done very carefully to avoid applying our own analysis or possibly violating Wikipedia's "synthesis" (WP:SYNTH) policy. DonFB (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Beach

I would prefer to eliminate all references to O'Dwyer's supposed Beach recantation. The alternative would be to provide an explanation of how O'Dwyer has misinterpreted Beach's writings, taking Beach to say GW had flown *in* an aeroplane in 1901, when what Beach said was GW's machines had flown, but meaning without GW aboard. O'Dwyer then states Beach "recanted" his view, when in fact, Beach was thoroughly consistent in his view that GW never did make a flight aboard one of his machines in 1901. The Beach recantation existed solely in the mind of O'Dwyer. To let the O'Dwyer conflated and misleading "analysis" stay in the article as it is now would not be correct. For the short term, until the exact wording in the remaining Scientific American articles can be found, I am content to leave it that "Over the years, Stanley Beach gave conflicting accounts of Whitehead's accomplishments." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments certainly cast things in a different light. I would want to see support for:

"what Beach said was GW's machines had flown, but meaning without GW aboard."

and for:

"...in fact, Beach was thoroughly consistent in his view that GW never did make a flight aboard one of his machines in 1901."

If all this is accurate, then it would probably not even be correct to say Beach gave conflicting accounts--except as reported by O'Dwyer.

At the moment, Beach's sentiments, as shown in the quotes, look like a recantation. So there may be two issues: 1) accuracy of the quoted statements, and 2) context or further interpretation (by whom?) of what Beach said. Anyway, I'll look forward to results of your research. DonFB (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is is possible to report what O'Dwyer claimed about Beach but without giving his argument undue weight? We can say what we know about Beach and we can say O'Dwyer (mis)represented him in such-and-such a manner. Binksternet (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable approach. It would depend, however, upon use of a reliable source to state an opinion, or present facts, which show that O'Dwyer misrepresented Beach. That's not something we, as editors, can assert. DonFB (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's the only option we have then we should drop the Beach quotes as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between A ("if it's the only option") and B ("as undue weight"). Do you mean undue weight to O'Dwyer's presentation of Beach's statements, or undue weight to the actual quotes in Scientific American, attributed to Beach?

Now that Carroll has ferreted out the actual quotes from the source, they take on more legitimacy than if we presented them only as reported by O'Dwyer. On the other hand, there seems to be some question whether the quotes are actually Beach's. Even if the words are not Beach's, the two quotations from Scientific American about GW flights (quotations shown condensed in the GW article's Stanley Beach section, and reproduced unedited elsewhere in this Discussion) are significant because of their appearance in a prestigious publication which is clearly a reliable source (even if not everything it has ever reported is true). For that reason alone, the quotes deserve space in the GW article.

The Wikipedia article's use of the quotes should either present them in full, or indicate that they have been condensed. They could even be paraphrased. I believe that whether they are shown in full or are condensed, the quotes carry the same essential meaning: that Scientific American magazine mentioned that GW made one or more "aeroplane" flights in 1901. Even though it's possible for us to question or debate the exact nature of those "flights", I think the quoted SciAm text easily exceeds a threshhold for significance and relevance to be part of this article.

I suppose one could argue that SciAm's mention of GW flying in 1901 is because the editorial staff, or Beach, was aware of the 1901 Bridgeport Herald article. Perhaps that was the case, and none of them had any personal or verifiable knowledge of what GW did or did not do. (There is also Carroll's point that Beach seems to dismiss the Herald article.) In relation to Wikipedia's GW article, I don't think it matters, and, obviously, we can't know. My point is that Scientific American said, independently of O'Dwyer (presumably a toddler or less at the time), that GW made flights "with" an aeroplane in 1901. That's well worth mentioning, either as a direct quotation, or as a paraphrase.

If we have consensus that Beach said it, then we can reasonably say that he eventually "recanted" or "reversed" or gave "conflicting" or "inconsistent" statements. Any one of those terms works for me. If we don't have a consensus that Beach was the source of the quotes, we don't have to say any of those things about him, although we could still report that O'Dwyer claimed that Beach recanted. Right now, the article's assertion of "recantation" is not attributed to O'Dwyer; rather, it is based on the actual quotations. We should, in any case, include Beach's 1937 denial, a statement that is important because he had worked personally with GW and was a respected and notable journalist. DonFB (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about something such as this... we open a Stanley Yale Beach wiki article, I think he deserves a page on his own merits, wherein we can go into some details about his (presumably his) statements regarding GW. We can then make brief mentions in the body of the GW article and refer to the SYB article for a deeper presentation. The same thing might be done with Stella Randolph and O'Dwyer. I am concerned that giving full and proper measure to some of these points only serves to muddy the article with respect to what GW might or might not have done and accomplished. It would also make the article excessively long. I know others will see this differently, but at some point it makes sense to refocus the GW article on who GW was and what GW was did.

I have a similar view on the Smithsonian/Wright/GW issue. That can be seen as a separate article, as well, with some brief mention and a reference to that separate article.

DonFB, I agree that the First to Fly matter is another kettle of fish, but it is, rather obviously, one of the reasons why GW's story is of interest. O'D. was determined to demonstrate that GW was the First To Fly. Randolph had a different view. For at least one editor of this article, the First To Fly issue is central. So, a (hopefully) brief presentation of both views of whether or not GW was the First To Fly seems important to include in the GW article.

Also, DonFB, you said you hadn't seen the "trustworthy account" quote previously; I first made mention of it in the "Bits from archives" section in a 10:01, 25 October 2011 post. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, guess I was so focused on the "blurred photograph" bit that the "trustworthy" part of that quote never made it from short term cranial ram to long term storage.

I think your suggestion to break out parts of the article into separate stand-alone articles is reasonable. That would make the GW article less bloated and easier to read. The issue, obviously, is exactly how much/which parts to remove. My concern, as you might imagine, is that the procedure not cut essential material--which of course can lead to further discussion about what is essential. I don't envision wholesale removal of sections, but many of them can be shortened and some might be combined after shortening.

You said: "it makes sense to refocus the GW article on who GW was and what GW did". Ah, but there's the rub, isn't it? "What GW did" depends on who's telling the story, hence the creation of some of the article sections, which in a number of cases have grown too lengthy and detailed...muddy. It may be that the article is already in violation of policy by giving too much space to the minority viewpoint. On the other hand, to be frank, the "majority" viewpoint consists, so far, of rather scant material. A few outright dismissals, not much evidence, and...case closed.

I agree with your view that GW is of interest because of the "first to fly" issue. My point about Beach was that (so it appears) he contradicted himself regarding GW's achievements, but his comments did not seem to be explicitly involved with the big struggle over "first."

No doubt we (and other editors) have various ideas about what portions of this article are expendable (but are intended for preservation in new related articles). I guess the next step is to start specifying what those portions are and see which suggestions are congruent and which are....divergent. And trudge the path to compromise. DonFB (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to have Roger involved in this, but there is no reason why we cannot begin the process here, in discussion. As for what GW "did" - yes that is the rub, or one of a few rubs, but still we can verifiably source that he immigrated from Germany, married, settled in Bridgeport, built engines and flying machines, he did this over a period of many years, he had ongoing financial problems and he sought funding, had an article appear which told a story of him flying, wrote several letters to publications which were published, and so on. As to how successful the flying machines and engines were, that is another matter. GW later became a vessel for certain minority views with respect to the Wrights, and we can detail those views, as we ought to, and use P. Jakab, P. Jarrett and T. Crouch as representing the majority view. We do need to address, in some fashion and to some degree, the First To Fly issue with respect to O'D and GW, likewise the O'D/Smithsonian battle. Setting forth the technical information about his devices, such technical information as exists, would also be proper.

There is a consideration about SYB which presents a thorny issue (aren't they all ?). As with R. Howell being assumed to be the author of the 18 August 1901 Sunday Herald article, O'D. and others have assumed that SYB wrote the Scientific American articles, however none of the articles I've seen (including, of course, the 18 August 1901 article) are by-lined. So, when O'D. mentions a "recantation" by SYB, he has assumed that the various Scientific American articles were written by SYB. The standard for Wiki is not assumption, though, it is verifiability... and if the articles cannot be shown to be SYB's, any later commentary with respect to GW which we know is by SYB (i.e., the 1937 statement) must stand on its own as evidence of what SYB had to say about GW. That would be, as I understand it, consistent with Wiki's policies.

Last thing for now, I hope to have the January 1908 Scientific American article in hand over this coming weekend and we'll see what that holds. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So far, we're pretty much on the same page. I think virtually everything you mentioned in the post just above is covered in the article, but there's too much detail in a number of places. I'm prepared to defer to your knowledge about Beach's authorship (or lack of it) of the SciAm articles. The GW article might point out that Beach, as son of the editor, held editorial positions at SciAm, but no byline or other clear evidence of his authorship seems to exist for the material in question. The GW article could further state that O'Dwyer made (unproven) claims about Beach's authorship and his alleged "recantation". Doing it that way seems to stick to the known facts and also explains something of O'Dwyer's approach (tactics?) regarding GW.

Yes, I imagine Roger would be interested in this effort. Of course, he's free to join in any time. He seems not to be monitoring the article lately. That leaves it to our better judgement whether to contact him by leaving a note on his User Talk page. I'm certain his participation would make things more interesting, while also affecting efficiency in ways that could be of interest. DonFB (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A Hypothetical

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to pose the following hypothetical: what would your reaction be to someone claiming to have flown an ornithopter a distance of over 4 miles, over a valley, beginning from atop a 2,000 ft. peak. If they claimed to have done this prior to 1900, would your reaction be any different ? I hope you'll indulge me by offering some comments. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be quite skeptical if the claim were made for an event prior to, say, 1970, but I would be interested in knowing whatever the evidence or testimony might be, regardless of historical time period. Does this hypothetical relate to the Beach issue, or to a specific proposal to improve the article? DonFB (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy question

If, for example, an opinion stated by O'D. were irrefutably, beyond question, be shown to be false, should that opinion be included in the GW article ? If the answer is yes, would it then be labeled as false or would a demonstration of its falsity be included, or... ? Carroll F. Gray (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If his opinion was prominent then yes. If a refutation was prominent then yes. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The question is of realtive sources. And if we are not in a position to identify a source as dodgy, then I think you treat it as "A says subject is X. B says subject is Y" and let the reader figure it out for themselves. Except that if B is specifically commentating on A, then it would be "A says ... is X, but B says A is wrong as ...is Y" GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Carroll, some items from Wikipedia's (vast) collection of policies, guidelines and essays about editing the encyclopedia:

From Due and Undue Weight, Neutral Point of View, WP:NPOV:

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." (italics in original)

From Quotations, Reliable Sources, WP:RS:

"Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)"

Also from Reliable Sources (Academic Consensus subsection):

"Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

From Article Splitting, NPOV Tutorial, WP:NPOVT:

"When an article becomes too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a split is recommended. Such split can be performed in a biased way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article..."

A very full explanation at Content Forking, WP:CFORK.

Fringe Theories, WP:FRINGE, may also contain some useful information to consider.

DonFB (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Text - 18 August 1901 Herald article

FYI, there are errors (beyond punctuation) in the linked text version of the 18 August 1901 Herald article. http://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/History_of_the_Airplane/Who_Was_First/Gustav_Whitehead/Whitehead_Articles.htm#herald Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are any of those errors repeated in the GW article? DonFB (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They're transcription errors (sorry to not have been clear about that). Carroll F. Gray (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. My thought was that an error in the Herald article as shown at the Wright Bros website might be repeated in the GW article, because the GW article quotes several times from that source of the Herald article. DonFB (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand your question - I thought that by "GW article" you meant the 18 august 1901 Herald article, and were asking if the errors had appeared in that article, as well as in the transcription. I will look the Wiki GW article over to see if the errors have found their way here. Sorry for the mis-understanding. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect "raising" corrected to "rising" in Herald article quotation Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientific American - 25 Jan. 1908 & 8 June 1901

The following is quoted from a 25 January 1908 (pg. 54, col. 2-3) article (with no byline) about H. Farman's flying: “In view of the above-mentioned facts, while giving to M. Farman the credit for first publicly demonstrating that it is possible to fly in all directions, both with, against, and across a light wind, we nevertheless wish to recall to the aeronautical world the fact that to America belongs the credit of producing the first successful motor-driven aeroplane, and that to such men as the Wright brothers, A. M. Herring and Gustave Whitehead - men who under the tutelage of Lilienthal and Chanute, have begun with gliding flight and gradually worked their way forward to the production of a self-propelled aeroplane, in all its details, including the gasoline motor - belongs the real credit of having produced the first successful heavier-than-air flying machines.” Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Herring and GW must have beamed with pride if they read it. WB must have bristled (and would again) to read they were under the "tutelage" of Chanute. Seems like this quote (part of it anyway) could be added to the pro-GW arguments in the article.

Holy cow, that's all one sentence. Only in recent years have I come to understand why Hemingway was considered so trailblazing with his terse style and short sentences. DonFB (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a slew of words. It's also a good positive statement on GW's behalf, which is one reason why altering quotations, to boost GW's status and to eliminate Herring, Farman, WW and OW, and so on, make it all the more interesting. Some high-profile supporters of GW seem to have felt compelled to alter even this quotation in their quest to give the status to GW of having flown first. I'm wading into the swamp of original research in saying the following, but... (laying my cards on the table) the more I delve into pro-GW sources the more examples I find of altered and misleading material. This makes me appreciate S. Randolph's approach all the more, for whatever the degree of her partisanship, she avoided falling into the trap of suppressing, falsifying and intentionally misconstruing information - something which others certainly appear to have done. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

How about the article as it now stands? If we present the SciAm quotes properly and back away from asserting that Beach recanted, what other material in the article, if any, do you think suffers from such practices? DonFB (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that the only Scientific American article about GW which SYB claims as his own was the one which appeared in the 8 June 1901 issue. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've kind of lost track; don't think a June 8, '01 quote is on this page now. What does it say? DonFB (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the Scientific American article which features the two familiar photographs which SYB took - I've transcribed the text: Scientific American, 8 June 1901, p. 357

"A NEW FLYING MACHINE "

A novel flying machine has just been completed by Mr. Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Conn., and is now ready for the preliminary trials. Several experiments have been made, but as yet no free flights have been attempted.

"The machine is built after the model of a bird or bat. The body is 16 feet long and measures 2 1/2 feet at its greatest width and is 3 feet deep. It is well stayed with wooden ribs and braced with steel wires and covered with canvas which is tightly stretched over the frame. Four wheels, each one foot in diameter, support it while it stands on the ground. The front wheels are connected to a 10 horse power engine to get up speed on the ground, and the rear wheels are mounted like casters so that they can be steered by the aeronaut. On either side of the body are large aeroplanes, covered with silk and concave on the underside, which give the machine the appearance of a bird in flight. The ribs are bamboo poles, and are braced with steel wires. The wings are so arranged that they can be folded up. The 10-foot rudder, which corresponds to the tail of a bird, can also be folded up and can be moved up and down, so as to steer the machine on its horizontal course. A mast and bowsprit serve to hold all the parts in their proper relation.



(photo) "

WHITEHEAD'S FLYING MACHINE, SHOWING ENGINE AND PROPELLERS



"In front of the wings and across the body is a double compound engine of 20 horse power, which drives a pair of propellers in opposite directions, the idea being to run the machine on the ground by means of the lower engine until it has the necessary speed to rise from the ground. Then the upper engine actuates the propellers so as to cause the machine to progress through the air to make it rise on its aeroplanes.



(photo) "WHITEHEAD'S FLYING MACHINE, SHOWING AEROPLANES

"The wings are immovable and resemble the outstretched wings of a soaring bird. The steering will be done by running one propeller faster than the other in a way analogous to the way in which an ocean steamer having twin screws can be turned, a special aeroplane being provided to maintain longitudinal and transverse stability. 

The lower engine is of 10 horse power, and weighs 22 pounds. The diameter of the cylinder is 3 7-16 inches by 8 inches stroke. The upper engine is a double compound cylinder, the diameters being 2 1/4 and 3 7-16 inches with a 7-inch stroke. The engine weighs 35 pounds, and calcium carbide is used to develop pressure by means of explosions. The propellers weigh 12 pounds, and are 6 feet in diameter, with a projected blade surface of 4 square feet. With a drawback test, the upper engine being run at full speed, the dead pull was 365 pounds. The weight of the body and wheels is 45 pounds. The wings and tail have 450 square feet of supporting surface, and the weight is 35 pounds."

I believe a proper understanding of the phrase "... as yet no free flights have been attempted." would be that it had been "lofted" with ropes, essentially flown as a kite is flown. In his 1939 statement, SYB said that he had simply reported what he was told. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How--if at all--do you think this article (or a quoted excerpt) should be used in, or as a source, for the GW Wikipedia article? DonFB (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the description of No. 21 and its specifications can be used - that constitutes the bulk of the article. I think it would be bulky to use extensive quotes, but it is of interest as the one certain SYB article about GW's No. 21. Also, the opening two sentences could be referenced 

("A novel flying machine has just been completed by Mr. Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Conn., and is now ready for the preliminary trials. Several experiments have been made, but as yet no free flights have been attempted.") as setting the time-frame for No. 21's development. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

SY Beach section rewrite

Here is my suggestion for a re-write of the "Stanley Beach" section

Stanley Yale Beach was the son of the editor of Scientific American magazine and later became editor himself. His father, Frederick C. Beach, contributed thousands of dollars to support Whitehead's aeronautical work. Whitehead built an under-powered over-weight biplane that Stanley Beach designed, which never flew.

Beach claimed authorship of only one Scientific American article about Whithead, that of 8 June 1901, which did not state Whitehead had flown. O’Dwyer asserted that all the articles in Scientific American which mentioned Whitehead had been written by Beach, but did not offer proof. Therefore, O'Dwyer believed that Beach had “recanted” an earlier view that Whitehead had flown. Anonymous reports in Scientific American did state Whitehead had flown. O’Dwyer went further, asserting this speculated recantation was attributed to Beach becoming a “politician” who was “rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927." O’Dwyer’s assertion that Beach had ever stated Whitehead had flown was unproven.

Beach stated that Whitehead "deserves a place in early aviation, due to his having gone ahead and built extremely light engines and aeroplanes. The five-cylinder kerosene one, with which he claims to have flown over Long Island Sound on 17 January 1902 was, I believe, the first aviation Diesel."

Stanley Beach had a long association with Whitehead, and in 1939 Beach wrote down his thoughts about Whitehead, stating “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground under their own power in spite of the assertions of many persons who think they saw him fly." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks mostly ok to me. Here's a few changes I would make:

Stanley Yale Beach was the son of the editor of Scientific American magazine and later became editor himself. He had a long personal association with Whitehead. His father, Frederick C. Beach, contributed thousands of dollars to support Whitehead's aeronautical work. Whitehead built an under-powered over-weight biplane that Stanley Beach designed, which never flew.

Beach claimed authorship of only one Scientific American article about Whithead, that of 8 June 1901. The article did not state Whitehead had flown and was published before Whitehead's reported flight of August 1901. Unsigned articles in Scientific American in 1906 did state that Whitehead had flown in 1901, but gave no details.

O'Dwyer asserted that all the articles in Scientific American which mentioned Whitehead had been written by Beach, but did not offer proof. O'Dwyer thus believed that, because of a statement Beach made many years later, Beach had “recanted” his earlier view that Whitehead had flown. O’Dwyer supported his opinion by asserting that Beach became a “politician” who was “rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead's death in 1927."

In 1939 Beach wrote down his thoughts about Whitehead, stating, “I do not believe that any of his machines ever left the ground under their own power in spite of the assertions of many persons who think they saw him fly."

Beach stated that Whitehead "deserves a place....

In the rewritten text, the mention of Beach's article of June '01 would be footnoted to reference that article. The mention of the unsigned SciAm articles should be footnoted to reference the two SciAm quotes currently in the Beach section of the article. The O'Dwyer quote about "politician" would be footnoted, and the Beach quotes in the last two paragraphs ("do not believe" & "deserves a place") would each be footnoted. A footnote for the under-powered overweight biplane in the first para would be helpful. DonFB (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Other sections mentioning Beach

These sections should also be re-written, to reflect the lack of attribution for the Scientific American Whitehead-related articles: Photos, 1903 and Legacy Carroll F. Gray (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Beach text in Legacy can be eliminated when the Beach section rewrite is complete--the same info ought not appear twice. Not sure I see the problem in Photos section, although its text can likely be edited down. Feel free to edit the 1903 section. DonFB (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)