Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

Reconsidering how we characterize researchers and authors

This paragraph from the lead: "In the decades since, several non-academic researchers[note 2] have promoted their belief that Whitehead made controlled, powered airplane flights more than two years before the Wright Brothers did on 17 December 1903. These claims have repeatedly been dismissed by mainstream aviation scholars." is a paragraph we should reconsider very carefully.

Why do we use the term "non-academic"? How many of the "mainstream aviation scholars" do really have academic merits in the field of aviation? I have researched many of the people on the "mainstream aviation scholars" side. For example Nick Engler, the owner of the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company web site, which has been used extensively in the references to this Gustave Whitehead article, has published 50 books about woodworking and has a web site about woodworking http://www.workshopcompanion.com/ "A compliation of woodworking information based on the works of America's most prolific craftsman/author."

http://www.ohio.edu/engineering/video/wrightflyer/index.cfm "Fellow Bobcat Nick Engler, BFA '73, built the replicas. Engler is the founder and director of Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company, an educational, nonprofit organization of aviators, historians, educators, and others whose mission is to tell the story of the invention of the airplane to all young people in the hopes of inspiring them. Engler's company has recreated six of the brothers' 19 planes in an effort to inform others of the Wrights' accomplishments." Note that these replicas are far from full-size replicas. They are more like model airplanes driven by rubberband "motors". Their biggest replica has been taken into several classrooms to be shown to children.

And what about his friend Louis Chmiel who has written all the aviation history articles on the Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company web site? http://dayton-daily-news.vlex.com/vid/landing-flyer-replica-rests-ancestors-64958979 and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11933546.html "amateur historian Louis Chmiel"

http://www.wright-brothers.org/General/About_the_Museum/About_the_Museum.htm "And strictly speaking, we aren't historians. We are experimental archaeologists – we study history by repeating it."

About this paragraph in this article: "Contemporary U.S. aviation researchers Nick Engler and Louis Chmiel dismiss Whitehead's work and its influence, even if new evidence is discovered showing that he flew before the Wright brothers:

"While Whitehead believers insist that he was first to fly, no one claims that his work had any effect on early aviation or the development of aeronautic science. Even if someone someday produces a photo of No. 21 in flight on August 14, 1901, it will be nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation."[1]"

Those are the words of one woodworker and an amateur historian, "experimental archaeologists", and intensive admirers of the Wright brothers.

I will continue with the rest of the "mainstream aviation scholars" and the so-called "non-academic" researchers, writing down what I can find out about each one of them. For now I want to urge all wp editors working with this article to seriously reconsider the characterization of the researchers on both sides of the issue. The real people behind the characterizations "non-academic" researchers and "mainstream aviation scholars" can not so easily be put into such categorical groups. We need to carefully research each and every person and tell the reader about the qualifications, loyalties and possibilities of each person to research and describe Gustave Whitehead and his accomplishments.

By the way, I can immediately continue with Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith. He is one of the few, if not the only one, who had academic education, but he formed and wrote his judgment on Gustave Whitehead in 1960 and he had only the writings of Orville Wright, Wright brothers biographers and the writings of the Smithsonian as his sources. He had no knowledge of the modern day research made by Kosch, O'Dwyer, CAHA, etc..

I have earlier researched the rest of the "mainstream aviation scholars" and I found that half of them are either working for the Smithsonian or are closely related to the Smithsonian, the other half are Wright brothers biographers and intensive admirers of the Wright brothers. Very few, if any of them, have academic education in the field of aviation history. Roger491127 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, any of the historians associated with the Smithsonian are scholars. That's all we are concerned about. Top scholars think Whitehead did not fly. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-academic

And while you are at it you can remove the word "non-academic" from the lead. Unless you can prove that many of the "mainstream aviation scholars" have academic education in the field of aviation history it is misleading and wrong to call one group of researchers "non-academic".

You can replace the word non-academic with the word US Airforce, because US airforce researchers ( 9315th USAF Reserve Squadron in Stratford, At the request of the Connecticut Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association's (CAHA)) made the main part of the modern research about Gustave Whitehead:

"In late 1963, the dilemma of attempting to determine how Gustave A. Whitehead fit into early powered flight history was more or less thrust upon our then very active 9315th USAF Reserve Squadron in Stratford, Connecticut. The question we were to answer was a tough one: did or did not Whitehead fly with power before the December 17, 1903, events at Kitty Hawk?

There had never been a formal inquiry into that matter. At the request of the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association's (CAHA) vice president, Harold "Hal" Dolan, our squadron became the first to embark on that mission. Dolan felt we should dig into the 1901 accounts of flights alleged to have taken place in and around Bridgeport, Fairfield and Stratford, Connecticut. CAHA (now known as the New England Air Museum) was attempting to chronicle aviation history in Connecticut." Roger491127 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A quotation on a Discussion page is not a "reference". I looked in the article History and don't see a reference in the article where you made the change. I can agree to saying CAHA "requested" the squadron to research the issue. However, I believe O'Dwyer did the great majority of the research and led the effort. I would like to read the source for the quotation about Dolan so I can better assess whether I agree or disagree that the Squadron and CAHA are roughly equal in importance to O'Dwyer in the work that was done. I believe that CAHA (now the New England Air Museum) never took an official position about claims for Whitehead's purported manned powered flight of Aug.1901. But O'Dwyer certainly took a postion, because, I believe, he was in charge of the work and did most of it. DonFB (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Non-academic" is needed—badly—to separate the Whitehead-o-philes from the great mass of aviation scholars who do not give a fig for Whitehead, and credit him with nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You, Binksternet, sound a lot like Dickie did on the phone with O'Dwyer:

"...his mood changed to anger when I asked him about Gustave Whitehead. He flatly refused to talk about Whitehead, and when I asked him why, he said: "That SOB never paid me what he owed me. My father had a hauling business and I often hitched up the horses and helped Whitehead take his airplane to where he wanted to go. I will never give Whitehead credit for anything.". Roger491127 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

William F. Trimble. Professor. B.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 1969; M.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 1970; Ph.D., University of Colorado, Boulder, 1974. His most recent book, Attack from the Sea: A History of the U.S. Navy's Seaplane Striking Force, appeared in 2005 with the Naval Institute Press. Jerome C. Hunsaker and the Rise of American Aeronautics (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2002) connected to the Smithsonian Institution. Roger491127 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tom D. Crouch - Smithsonian Institution www.si.edu/ofg/Staffhp/CrouchT.htm Tom D. Crouch. Senior Curator, Division of Aeronautics. National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution PO Box 37012. Roger491127 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fred Howard, a Wright brothers biographer: Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers - Google Books Result books.google.se/books?isbn=0486402975... Fred Howard - 1998 - Antiques & Collectibles - 560 pages Author Fred Howard, an expert on early aviation technology and member of the team that edited a nuilti -volume edition of the Wright brothers' papers for the ... Roger491127 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A BIOGRAPHY Of WALTER J. BOYNE: Aviation Pioneers: Wings ... www.wingsoverkansas.com/profiles/article.asp?id=283 Walter J. Boyne was the Director of the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution from 1983 to 1986, and Acting Director from 1981 to 1983. Roger491127 (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes 26 January 2012

I used the early morning hours to fix most of the faults of this article and made a copy of it as it is much better now. Somebody will probably undo all my changes and destroy the article again, but for a few hours it was a good article. Roger491127 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I left the explanation about the missing signature on Dick Howell's article in the section The Herald article and drawing, but it doesn't dominate the article in the lead, a reasonable compromise in my view. Roger491127 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article; History of aviation in Connecticut?Tomticker5 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if other wp editors would allow that, but it could be a good idea. Maybe we should try to cooperate to make this article better first. If you support my changes it will be more difficult for other wp editors to change it back to the bad state it was in before. Roger491127 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The notional article History of aviation in Connecticut cannot be made into a POV fork for the purpose of holding all the non-mainstream ideas such as congratulating Connecticut as the place where powered flight first took place. Any monkeyshines like that will get deleted, and quickly. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good point. If such an article is created, I will certainly be watching it for NPOV. DonFB (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

According to wikipedia rules we should not engage in revert wars, instead we should try to find a solution we all can agree upon. Binksternet has kind of disqualified himself by expressing a very angry and extreme position above, declaring that he will credit Whitehead with nothing. So we two stand against DonFB, and maybe Graemelegget will show up. Let's see how we all can come to an agreement which all of us, except Binksternet, can be satisfied with. Roger491127 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to declare alliances is absurdly childish and out of bounds for Wikipedia. That kind of behavior can be reported to a Noticeboard. DonFB (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to tell a Noticeboard something you also tell them how you allowed Original Research to influence important parts of this article and no matter how much I tried to explain that to you above you tried all kinds of maneuvers to avoid making right what that mistake had caused. You can also explain how you wanted support from such an outspoken anti-Whitehead wp editor as Binksternet for that OR mistake and its consequences. Roger491127 (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Read or re-read my explanation about OR in the section below about O'Dwyer,Howell and orig research and try to understand it. No mistake exists. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by alliances and exclusions, which seem to be your favored tactic. DonFB (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tomticker5 that this article has become too much anti-Whitehead POV under your leadership so it is nothing wrong with some cooperation between me and Tomticker5 to get the article back to a more balanced view. And Binksternet has expressed so much anger and hostility towards Whitehead so he has effectively disqualified himself from editing this article. I quote from above: ""Non-academic" is needed—badly—to separate the Whitehead-o-philes from the great mass of aviation scholars who do not give a fig for Whitehead, and credit him with nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)". Roger491127 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not the "leader" for this article. I am an editor who wants the article to be NPOV. You have made no secret of your extreme POV on this article's subject. I will continue to watch the article and make edits that I believe are appropriate to keep it NPOV. DonFB (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed support your edits. I suggest the introduction be reworded to help the reader understand Whitehead was considered, at least in 1904, to be among the short-list (by Cochrane and newspaper accounts) of men who had already conquered the air by that time. And, it wasn't until five decades later that his flights were dismissed. I'd like to see that he has a proper place in the evolution of powered flight as depicted here on Wikipedia. The Wright Brother's certainly conquered controlled powered flight in 1903, that's not in doubt. But, I've found dozens of newspaper articles, outside of Bridgeport, that support the claim that Whitehead flew unmanned powered machines as early as May 1901 and manned powered flights after August 1901 at the Library of Congress. I do not believe Bridgeport, Connecticut in the early 1900s was a place where US newspapermen went to get a story about a "dreamer", "liar" or "moonshiner". But, rather they were reporting on the advances being made in several industries too numerous to mention here, aviation being one, in Bridgeport.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You two make a great pair. You might want to poke your heads up out of the pro-Whitehead dugout and notice that aviation scholars (and the world in general) do not think he was the first at powered flight. Wikipedia is not the place to Right The Great Wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"You two make a great pair?", was that intended to be just a patronizing and condescending remark or is it a personal attack? No, I don't get a cut of the $8.00 entry fee at Kitty Hawk or own a t-shirt shop on the Outer Banks.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DonFB changed too much without discussion on talk page so I reverted to Tomticker5 version and added a reference showing that contrary to what DonFB changed to O'Dwyer was not so much a leader, Hal Dolan gave the orders about research so he could just as well be called the leader of the airforce research. Roger491127 (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You made major changes without discussing all of them. Your changes included the still-disputed issue of Herald article authorship. I changed that back to the previous meaning. My other modifications to your major edits were collaborative, and retained much of what you changed. Reverting my modifications wholesale is unproductive and uncooperative. DonFB (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

O'Dwyer, Howell and orig research

This article spends some time explaining that O'Dwyer did a lot of research on Howell. Readers are also told why O'Dwyer believes Howell drew the picture. Readers will be quite likely to ask, why did O'Dwyer do all that research, and why was it important, and why does this Wikipedia article tell us so much about O'Dwyer's research on Howell? The answer, we editors know, is because O'Dwyer was trying to be sure if Howell wrote the article and drew the picture. Readers will ask, why didn't O'Dwyer just look at an old copy of newspaper where he could see Howell's name on the article and on the drawing? To use a familiar phrase, readers will be confused about the matter, because they don't know that the newspaper article had no byline, and the drawing had no signature or caption identifying the artist. Why won't readers know these things? Because we did not tell them. We left them in the dark.

Except----we are telling them. We are not leaving them in the dark. We are not suppressing important information about the controversy. We are explaining, in just a few words, why O'Dwyer went to all the trouble of spending hours in the library to learn about Howell, and what kind of articles Howell wrote and that O'Dwyer said Howell drew pictures for his articles. If we did not tell readers that the newspaper article had no byline, readers would not know why we are telling them all about O'Dwyer's research on Howell, and why O'Dwyer did it in the first place.

It's very simple: we give readers sourced information; we do not withhold it.

Under Roger491127's understanding of original research, Wikipedia could not exist. No editor would be allowed to describe what he read or saw in any source, because, under his logic, that would be OR. Wikipedia requires that editors describe facts, based on sources, in their own words. Quotations are allowed, but not to the extent of copyright violation. Copying source text without quoting it is not allowed. Most of Wikpedia is--and is required to be--written in the words of the editors. This means editors have the flexibility to decide what words and expressions to use when describing the facts, as long as they do it accurately and neutrally. I do not believe any reasonable person would think "widely attributed" is an inaccurate or unfair choice of words by any Wikipedia editor to describe the situation regarding authorship of the Herald article by a reporter whose name does not appear on the newspaper article. DonFB (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say that the reader will be confused because O'Dwyer studied Howell's articles. As I understood it years ago O'Dwyer wanted to check how reliable the journalist Dick Howell was. O'Dwyer's research of Howell had nothing to do with the Original Research we have talked about above. O'Dwyer had no reason to doubt that Howell was the author of the article, and didn't find any reason to doubt it either, as he read many of Howell's articles. Roger491127 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is really surprising about this issue is how much work you have done to make the lack of a signature on that article into something important. Even if that article had been written by another journalist it wouldn't matter. We still have a newspaper article which describes how the journalist was an eyewitness to an early morning motorized flight by Gustave Whitehead. The only reason I can imagine behind this alleged importance of the lack of a signature on that article is that it can be used to insert an amount of doubt and confusion regarding the Whitehead flight the article describes. But somebody had to do some Original Research to introduce the lack of a signature into this wp article, because all sources which mentioned Dick Howell said that Dick Howell was the author of that article and the originator of the drawing. Roger491127 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no byline, and there is no original research in stating it. Re-read what I wrote earlier in this section that your (mis)understanding of OR would prevent Wikipedia from existing. You did say something just above that I agree with: "We still have a newspaper article which describes how the journalist was an eyewitness to an early morning motorized flight by Gustave Whitehead." In such a controversial topic as this one, even details you think are unimportant--like documented authorship--are important and must be explained as fully as possible. If pointing out the lack of documented authorship inserts doubt regarding the reported flight, that is a matter of history, not the fault of any Wikipedia editor. It is a fact of history. You have made your aggressive POV that the flight was real very well-known, so I can understand why you would resist any editorial effort that you think casts doubt on the event. For your benefit, I will point out that it is wrong and irresponsible to try to "protect" what you think is true by suppressing information about the news report's authorship. You might also notice that your statement about doing work to make the signature, or its lack, important, also applies fully to Roger491127. DonFB (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite willing to immediately stop all my "work" on the authorship issue, if the wording remains in the article that the Herald article is not signed and the authorship is attributed by researchers. DonFB (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording about this in the section The Herald article and drawing has not been touched so the issue is given more attention than it should. So I cannot understand your dissatisfaction. The lack of documented authorship wasn't a fact of history until this wp article pointed out that the article lacked a signature, and that could only have happened through Original Research.Your sentence above "You might also notice that your statement about doing work to make the signature, or its lack, important, also applies fully to Roger491127" is very strange because I have never written anything about the lack of a signature on Dick Howell's article in this wp article, that would be Original Research. Roger491127 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is--and always has been--a fact of history, as shown in the newspaper. It is not original research to describe, accurately, what the newspaper article contains or omits. The GW article includes not only direct quotes from the Herald article, but also much text by Wiki editors describing, in their own words, the content of the Herald article. By your logic, none of that description by editors would be allowed, and therefore, not just this article, but all of Wikipedia would not exist. But I understand that you want to run away from the fact and pretend it does not exist. I do not know what you are referring to when you say "The wording about this.....has not been touched...." I don't know what you mean. I also don't know what changes of Tomticker5 you are talking about in your post just below. Be specific. DonFB (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't you find the section "The Herald article and drawing" in the article? There somebody has written about the lack of a signature on Howell's article in BSH. And I haven't touched it, but I should, because it is based on Original Research. All else we have written about the content of Howell's article comes from the copy of the article at Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company web site and is not the result of Original Research. Roger491127 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A much more important issue is that you are reverting the changes Tomticker5 and I agree about. And you write (See discussion) as reason for your revert action even though you have reached no agreement about this here in the discussion page. And don't tell me you don't know what changes of Tomticker5 and me I am talking about, you know perfectly well how to read the history list ofchanges to the article. Roger491127 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know what changes you mean. I admit I did not go through the History to figure out what you're talking about. If you'd like to tell me, fine. If not, that's your choice. If you want to re-edit the article to restore something Tomticker did, you have that right. If I agree, I'll leave it alone. If I disagree, of course I have the right to do another re-edit. DonFB (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I removed the original research from the section "The Herald article and drawing". Before you make any further changes to the article, please discuss it here on the discussion page first. The basic rule in wikipedia is that we should come to an agreement on the discussion page before we make any changes we don't have support for. And when we have a situation like this, when there are very different views on how to formulate the article it becomes even more important that we reach an agreement here on the discussion page before anybody makes any further changes. And remember, if you look closely at the photocopy of Howell's article and note that it is not signed that is original research and you can not use that in the article. If you find something about the lack of a signature in outside sources you can, of course, use that. But then give a reference to that source. Roger491127 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not original research, it is a commonplace summary of what is known. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing the change

It looks like the major changes made by Roger491127 early on Jan 26 that I modified have all been restored by him to his exact changes, and he has again reverted all the modifications I made. I do not agree with this action. Roger491127 is urging that editors discuss any new changes, but I note that most of his significant changes, including the very contentious Herald authorship dispute, were made by him without consensus having been reached on that or the other issues. He apparently wants the editing process to work like a one way street. He made major changes without consensus, then tries to insist on discussion before anyone makes further changes. This is an unworkable approach to editing the encyclopedia. I will be bold, and make the changes/reversions I believe are appropriate, and we'll continue from there, and with luck reach a version agreeable to all. DonFB (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored all my modifications. Here are my explanations for the changes:

I removed text about the USAF squadron from the Intro because I think it's too much detail, and I question its accuracy regarding the role of Squadron and the CAHA in researching Whitehead. Roger said he provided a "reference" for this text, but the "reference" was a quotation in the Discussion section, not an actual reference in the article. The quotation does not seem to support giving roughly equal credit to O'Dwyer, the Squadron and CAHA for the research later publicized by O'Dwyer himself.

I restored a wiki link to the Smithsonian Institution in the intro. I would not think this requires a defense.

I cut the date of the Wright brothers flight to help the Intro read more smoothly. If another editor insists on restoring the date, I will not object.

I cut the specifics about the Herald article from the Introduction and replaced the text with a general statement of fact: a local newspaper reported a flight. The specifics regarding the Herald article are given in two different sections later in the GW article.

In the "1901" section of the article, I specified that the Herald article is unsigned and that Howell is attributed as the author by Whitehead researchers (footnotes identify the researchers). I have added a footnote with a link to the actual image of the newspaper article, which omits a byline.

I will specify my other modifications in another post, upcoming. DonFB (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the explanations:

I rearranged some text so that a sentence stating that no photos were taken of the reported flight is placed immediately after a sentence which gives the publication date of the Herald article. I added text that says the drawing is unsigned and that credit for it is given to Howell by Whitehead researchers.

Made a minor revision for readability/style to the text about O'Dwyer as discoverer of old photos of a Whitehead craft on the ground. I rewrote another part of the paragraph to give most credit to O'Dwyer for his Whitehead research. The change by Roger491127 in this section did not give a footnote. Part of his text--that CAHA "requested" O'Dwyer and his squadron to research Whitehead--appears to be correct, but a legitimate reference is needed to clarify whether O'Dwyer and his Squadron and CAHA all deserve the same credit, or if credit should go primarily to O'Dwyer.

In the "Controversy" section, I restored text about the lack of a byline on the article or a signature on the drawing. This text was in the article as recently as Jan. 24, before the major changes by Roger491127 on Jan. 26.

In the "Legacy" section, I modified text by Roger491127 which sounded like an opinion being given by the Wikipedia article ("probably came about because..."). While doing so, I retained all of the change that Roger491127 made to this part of the section. Further down in the section, I changed Roger491127's word "amateur" to the word "experienced" to describe aviation researchers Engler and Chmiel. I believe the word 'amateur' gives the connotation of lack of experience or knowledge, which is not the case for these men.

I believe this covers all of my restored modifications to Roger491127's major edits of Jan. 26. If I missed anything, I'm sure an editor will tell me. DonFB (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I begin from the end of your changes and work upward. Reinserted the expression "amateur aviation researchers" and added 3 refs to support it. Read the references and you will see that they are called amateur by 2 sources and in the third ref they even admit themselves that they are not real historians. Roger491127 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In the "Controversy" section I again removed original research. That it was in this article earlier is not a valid reason to keep it. Only a reference to an outside source is a valid reason to reinsert it. Roger491127 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored paragraph beginning "In the decades since" because it was correctly referenced. People who read this can check the reference and find out that Hal Dolan gave the order about the research, but it is also obvious from this article that O'Dwyer played a leading role, and that a lot of people from CAHA were involved in the research for witnesses. So this paragraph plus the rest of the content in this article gives a correct picture of who were involved in the research. Roger491127 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored para beginning with "In 1963 William O'Dwyer," this time with a reference for the text. Roger491127 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 1901, removed two "unsigned" because it was based on OR. Roger491127 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Too many changes had been made to the beginning of section 1901, so I had to restore the whole beginning. It took too much time to do detailed repair. Roger491127 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored paragraph beginning with "Claims for Whitehead rest largely on". I cannot understand why you deleted Dick Howell's name from this paragraph. Roger491127 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reading trough the article in its current shape. In the section "Stanley Beach" I miss something about how Beach told somebody that Whitehead's airplane was inherently stable in the air and always landed safely, like a pancake. This contrasted strongly with his statement that none of Whitehead's airplanes flew. I don't have time to find it now, but this should be in the Stanley Beach section. Roger491127 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection. Try to keep the text clean and brief, if possible. DonFB (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Inherently stable, my foot. We only have Whitehead's word for that, and he has been shown to give contradictory claims about his flights, especially about his control of the flights. If he had so much control, why was he towing his gliders by rope from the ground for so long? Why was he crashing into things and wrecking his kites? Reliable and skeptical sources have commented upon the disparity between various Whitehead accounts of supposedly the same flights, ones where he said he lost control vs times where he described his control as complete. Gibbs-Smith makes much of Whitehead's inability to create a thoroughbred of the air; rather, Whitehead's designs were like boats with wings attached, with poor aerodynamics. Binksternet (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not Whitehead who said that Whitehead's airplane was inherently stable in the air and always landed safely, like a pancake. It was Stanley Beach.

"Whitehead's designs were like boats with wings attached, with poor aerodynamics." Don't you see that Whitehead's airplanes nr 21 and 22 are much more like modern lightweight airplanes than the Wright brothers first 10 designs which don't look like any airplane produced after 1915? And when it comes to aerodynamics, Whitehead's airplanes were aerodynamically stable while the Wright brothers design was practically impossible to keep in the air for more than a few seconds, and no airplanes manufactured after 1915 used their design. Roger491127 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone spin that Whitehead's documented crashes during the years 1901 to 1903 were just folly. But, the Wright Brother's crashes, during the same time period, were a part of a well organized experiment?Tomticker5 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To DonFB: Do you see how Binksternet is a problem, not only for me but also for you? After I have spent hours to carefully made changes to the article, digging up references and adding them, Binksternet uses three clicks to undo all my changes. Then you use valuable time to do some changes. Then when I have to revert the revert Binksternet has done your changes are also undone.

And it should obvious to you as well as everybody else that Binksternet has problems with understanding what he reads. He thought that what Stanley Beach has said was said by Whitehead. Another problem is what he said above when he showed great anger towards Whitehead and wowed to credit him with nothing. Do you think he should be allowed to edit this article considering his obvious problems with understanding what he is reading and his openly displayed hate towards Whitehead? Roger491127 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments like these put you closer to getting reported to a Noticeboard. Stand on your own two feet and work to keep the article free of your own POV. DonFB (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I now undid reverts by Binksternet, but saved the ref added by Tuzi. Roger491127 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys are missing the boat: Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith says that Whitehead never flew anything. He says "The account of the flight on 14 August 1901 in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald reads like a work of juvenile fiction..." He says "There is no reason to believe Whitehead ever flew a machine of any kind". He says, "Although these claims have been actively revived, there can be no doubt that Whitehead's alleged flights were only flights of fancy. Whitehead was an ingenious dreamer who, in later years, managed to make a few powered hops." This is the mainstream viewpoint, and there is no chance that this article can be used to Right The Great Wrong and tell the world The True Truth that you wish to convey. What's needed is an aviation historian of the stature of Gibbs-Smith saying Whitehead flew. The various 'proofs' of contemporary newspapers and books must lie underneath all that; they cannot be used to override the mainstream viewpoint. We have to assume that all of them together were dismissed by Gibbs-Smith. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith made his judgment of Whitehead in 1960, based on the arguments of Orville Wright, which later have been shown to be invalid, but nevertheless repeated by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers, which Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith also used as his sources. So what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith wrote about Whitehead in his book printed in 1960 is worthless. But he may have had good knowledge about many other things. Roger491127 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but no dice. I see that Gibbs-Smith held the Lindbergh Chair, the USA's top aviation scholar position. Nobody of that stature has debunked Gibbs-Smith's work. You are not in a position to, my friend. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What Stella Randolph wrote about Howell in 1938:"Richard Howell, now de- ceased, and former editor of the Bridgeport Herald, stated in a story published in the Herald under date of August 18, 19013 that he had witnessed a half mile flight made by Gustave Whitehead " No doubt about who wrote the article there. Roger491127 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Using the wayback machine I found O'Dwyer's article in Flight Journal: http://web.archive.org/web/200101291027/http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/wff/wff1.asp Very valuable because it was impossible to find in other ways. Here we can also find the original of the quote which I referenced to a copy of it on a web site: "At the request of the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association's (CAHA) vice president, Harold "Hal" Dolan, our squadron became the first to embark on that mission. Dolan felt we should dig into the 1901 accounts of flights alleged to have taken place in and around Bridgeport, Fairfield and Stratford, Connecticut. CAHA (now known as the New England Air Museum) was attempting to chronicle aviation history in Connecticut." Roger491127 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good for you. It was already cited in the article. See Footnote 4. DonFB (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In this article O'Dwyer also writes about Howell's drawing: "Compare it to the 1901 sketch on the next page drawn by eyewitness Dick Howell, sports editor for the Bridgeport Sunday Herald; it is nearly identical except for the landing gear and engines." Note that he does not say he "believes" the drawing was made by Howell, he doesn't say he was told it was made by Howell by somebody, he says nothing about the lack of a signature. He says clearly and without reservations that the drawing was made by eyewitness Dick Howell. So all formulations which say otherwise in this article should be removed. Roger491127 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. DonFB (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You disagree, without giving any valid reasons. That doesn't win the discussion for you, when I have given you the words O'Dwyer himself used.

And another thing, in the article about how the replicas were made we can read these snips: "We were informed that Herb Kelley's geometry—fading angles process—used by the Pentagon in WW II, was reported to be very reliable. ... 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. Those plans were completed and approved as being substantially accurate by Whitehead's surviving toolmaker/machinist assistant Anton Pruckner. .. During the January 25, 1986, meeting at "Hangar 21," 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, discuss the design of the tail for Whitehead's 1901 powered monoplane reproduction.. ..On January 15, 1986, 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. Gordeuk carved the first copy of Whitehead's 1901 props using Whitehead's technique

We cannot definitely say that Whitehead flew in 1901. We can, however, definitely state that an accurate reproduction of his airframe flew (with modern engines) in 1997. That, in itself, says something important."

It would be valuable to mention this because Whitehead detractors argues that the replicas were not made correctly, but here we learn that even the propellers were made exactly like Whitehead made his propellers.

So the argument from Orville Wright, repeated by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers, that such a construction could never fly falls flat. Roger491127 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave good reasons already. We had a very long discussion. Re-read it. I don't need to repeat everything. But in simple terms: Randolph and O'Dwyer said he wrote it. And that's what our article says. DonFB (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is Whitehead that falls flat, failing to gain credence, failing to get his name listed among the important pioneers of aviation. Instead, we know that Whitehead influenced virtually nothing in the field of aviation, that he was an also-ran experimenter who did not forge new methods or blaze new trails. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. In 1904, Cochrane placed Whitehead on the very short list of successful soarers and gliders at that time (1904) and placed Whitehead ahead of (chronologically) and literally on the same page as the Wright Brother's. How can anyone, who wants to be taken seriously, say that Whitehead never gained credence or get his name listed among the important pioneers of aviation. He did, in 1904.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

In the 1960s, Gibbs-Smith evaluated all the Whitehead material that was published, and a wide variety of other materials about early aviation, and he determined that Whitehead's work was never emulated. Gibbs-Smith found that Whitehead did not contribute to the general fund of knowledge about flying. He was not methodical enough, did not keep scientific records to find out what worked and what did not, he was groping in the dark. Most importantly, he did not blaze a new trail for others to follow. His methods of control were somewhat crude and not especially noteworthy. His engines were not sufficiently light and strong to make the grade. His aircraft were saddled with non-ideal materials such as muslin used where silk would have been preferred. For one model he used two engines for two purposes, making each one work much harder to haul the other one around as deadweight. A guy who was unable to see this as a problem is a guy who was not going to get anywhere with his attempts at flight. He invented his flights and he found people to support these "flights of fancy". Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that in 1904, Whitehead was placed ahead of and on the same page as the Wright Brother's by an authority in the field at the time. Clearly, Cochrane was certainly more contemporaneous than Gibbs-Smith to the work of these early aviation pioneers having covered them since 1895 and being the first to classify "aerial navigation" as an industry. I don't believe Gibbs-Smith had the benefit of reading Cochrane's work either. Regarding Whitehead's records, he filed for a US patent in 1905 and received one for an "Aeroplane" in 1908 (no motor). The Wright Brother's received a US patent in 1906 for a "Flying Machine" also without a motor. Why is Whitehead being singled out by an author sixty years after his flights and considered a fake and his experiments "flights of fancy" when Lilienthal, Pichler, Chanute and Hering are not and have their places in the evolution of aviation? The facts are that Whitehead was badly injured and his machine wrecked in a 1910 crash according to the Hartford Courant. Is Gibbs-Smith saying his crashes were different than all the others? Whitehead didn't fade into obscurity, he died, in 1927.Tomticker5 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're challenging a Lindbergh Chair senior scholar on his scholarship? That dog don't hunt. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically on the question of why Whitehead tends to not be given credit as an aviation pioneer, I would say its lack of evidence of achievements or influence. Chanute corresponded with his contemporaries and there are photographs etc of their aircraft in action. Whitehead seems to have worked alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitehead did not work alone and his achievements were acknowledged by newspapers and researchers, but the Smithsonian avoided direct contact with him even though they were very interested in his airplane. So they sent somebody to study his airplane at an exhibition and waited until he had left his airplane. The reason behind this behavior is obvious, Langley who was at the top of the Smithsonian at the time wanted to become the first to make a motorized flight, but had not yet managed to get his Aerodrome to fly.Roger491127 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to argue against a Lindbergh Chair senior scholar. He was British; he had no horse in that race. I will take his word over yours, sir, and so will Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have again removed OR by DonFB and the formulations he derived from that OR. DonFB has tried to defend this mentioning of the lack of a signature on the article by Howell in several ways. 1: he referred to the fact that it has been in this article for a while, but referring to wikipedia is not allowed. 2 he referred to that he himself can see that it is not signed in the photocopy, but that is OR which is not allowed. 3 he referred to formulations by Randolph and O'Dwyer which I have shown were untrue, 4 he tried to enforce it anyway by using support from Binksternet, who has expressed hate towards Whitehead and that he would never credit Whitehead with nothing, which should make Binksternet unfit to edit this article based on his extreme partiality. If DonFB cannot refer to sources outside wp he should not write formulations which put Howell's authorship in doubt. Roger491127 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead "After his aeronautical experiments of the early 1900s, he lapsed into obscurity until his name was brought back to public attention by a 1935 magazine article and a 1937 book which focused attention on his life and work and led to "lively debate"[2] among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and even Orville Wright on the question of whether Whitehead actually flew." uses a reference which is not impartial or written by people with good qualifications. Nick Engler is an expert on woodworking, and Louis Chmiel is called an "amateur historian" by two newspapers, and they themselves say "we are not real historians, we are experimental archeologists" as I have shown in 3 references. (They are building model sized replicas of Wright brothers airplanes) It would be better to use Stella Randolph and Harvey Phillips article and book and prof B. Crane in the 1930s, and Orville Wright's article in 1945.The "lively debate" did not start until after 1945, when the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers adopted Orville's arguments which have been shown to be faulty, so this article should not give the impression that it started in the 1930s. Roger491127 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The current formulation "a 1937 book which focused attention on his life and work and led to "lively debate"[2] among scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts and even Orville Wright" gives the reader the impression that the "lively debate" among "scholars, researchers, aviation enthusiasts" started in the 1930s, and at the end even Orville Wright got involved. This is not a correct description of what really happened. Orville Wright wrote an article in 1945 which started the "lively debate" as this wp article formulates it. In reality there was no "lively debate", the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers adopted Orville's arguments which much later were shown to be faulty. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith adopted the views of Orville Wright, and the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers in the 1950s and published that view in a book in 1960. That is a much more correct chronology. Roger491127 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream aviation scholars overlooked Cochrane's 1904 book and 1911 reprint

It appears that the mainstream aviation scholars have overlooked Cochrane's 1904 book or even the 1911 reprint that lists Whitehead ahead of the Wright Brother's. I have yet to find a single reference made to Cochrane's book in any of the post-1948 work of any of the listed mainstream aviation scholars who have concluded that Whitehead never flew. That should cast some doubt on their investigative methods and findings. I understand that some believe modern scholarly work trumps contemporary work. But, that only holds true if the contemporary work is considered and studied. In Whitehead's case, it appears that the authorities who dismiss him have overlooked published work from 1904-1911 that supports his claims.Tomticker5 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They might have read it and discounted its usefulness - and in that case would not mention it. To question the quality of researchers you need a reliable source that does the questioning. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone study Gustave Whitehead and discount Cochrane's 1904 book (reprinted in 1911)? The consensus among modern aviation historians seems to be that Whitehead fell out of publicity after 1903 (not true) and into obscurity until a magazine article was published in the 1930s. The same aviation historians believe that, even if new evidence was to emerge showing that the Wright Brother's actually flew after Whitehead, that it wouldn't matter. More or less; even if a movie or a photograph of No. 21 "in flight" on August 14, 1901 was found, it will be "nothing more than a footnote, a curious anomaly in the history of aviation".Tomticker5 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are talking about the expression by Nick Engler and Louis Cmiel you are right. They are not qualified historians, the woodworker and the amateur historian even said themselves, "we are not real historian", they build model airplanes, miniature replicas of Wright brothers airplanes, and what they say shouldn't be quoted in the article. Roger491127 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith writes in 1960 (and you might want to read) that the Wright brothers established flying more firmly than any other early aviators because they combined the art and science of it, scientifically documenting their successes and failures, building carefully upon previous solutions, and then artfully putting the last bit of focus onto the skill of the pilot; a skill utterly absent in Whitehead. Whitehead's vision of the airplane was still a few decades in the future—he saw the airplane as something that should be as easy to fly as a bus or limousine is to drive. The Wrights conquered the air first because of the final measure of the skill of the man at the controls. Their aircraft was like a spirited thoroughbred, harder to control but more a creature of the air than Whitehead's. If the Wrights had held the viewpoint of the limo or bus driver, they would never have been first. It was only later that engines were powerful enough to put a 'bus' in the air, that is, a steady and stable aircraft. The Wright designs were never safe or stable; they always needed a very firm and skilled hand at the controls. What came from those designs, however, was the impetus for others to work harder because they now knew it to be possible. The Wrights waved their success in everybody's face by repeated demonstrations in Paris and elsewhere, and Europe was set aflame with the desire to beat them with better machines. The Wrights were the catalyst for all subsequent achievements. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If we talk about the pioneer's influence on the history of aviation Whitehead had very little influence, mainly because the Smithsonian deliberately avoided to contact him or in some serious way acknowledge his achievements. The Smithsonian was very interested in his airplane, but found an opportunity to inspect it at an exhibition when Whitehead was not near his airplane. But the influence of the Wright brothers was mainly very negative. Their neverending patent wars and legal battles with other flying pioneers set USA back 10-15 years compared to other countries. So when USA entered WWI in 1917 all pilots on the allied side, even American pilots, had to fly British and French airplanes, because Britain, France and Germany had developed working airplanes. In 1917 the Wright brothers patent wars ended because the president of USA ordered all airplane manufacturers to stop fighting each other and start cooperating. So approximately in 1919, when WWI ended USA could start producing working airplanes.

But this article is not about which influence Whitehead or the Wright brothers had on the history of aviation, it is only about when Whitehead first flew his airplanes, so I suggest we leave Engler and Chmiels unqualified utterance out of this article and concentrate on the invention side of it. Because if we start talking about who had a better influence on the history of aviation the Wright brothers would get a very bad reputation. See the wp article The Wright brothers patent war Roger491127 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger, you wrote that "Whitehead had very little influence, mainly because the Smithsonian" etc etc. That's so wrong it's not even funny. Whitehead had very little influence because he failed to fly around while famous people were watching, including photographers and cinematographers. Perhaps he failed to fly at all. At any rate, whether he flew or not, the Smithsonian did not stop him from holding a major demonstration of his supposed achievement. The unfortunate truth is that he never held such a grand affair, and this lack proved his undoing. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, from 1900 to 1904, Whitehead never said he was the "first" to fly a powered airplane.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Says who? That's impossible to prove. And what does it matter, anyway? Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that replicas of Whitehead's nr 21 have been successfully flown several times, but when I searched youtube for Wright replica flight I found only one successful flight of a replica of Flyer 1. Somebody managed to keep it in the air for around 90 feet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mscspl-VU During this search I also found a lot of crashes of Wright brother replicas. Two persons died trying to fly a replica of Wright model B, from around 1913, for example. That was the airplane which in 1913 the US army begged Orville to change because it had already killed 5-6 pilots, but Orville stubbornly refused. Roger491127 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In July 1901, after claiming successful unmanned powered flights, Whitehead is interviewed by the New York Sun. He stated that he believed he had "advanced further toward solving the problem of the airship" than had Langley and Maxim in the matter of "motor and the maintainance of equilibrium". He stated; "the trouble of all flying machines that have flown is that they have a habit of turning turtle-back in mid-flight. There has been no contrivance heretofore devised which will maintain their horizontal stability. After going a greater or less distance their noses point up into the air and they turn over backward and down toward the ground, or they turn over forward". Whitehead believed he had conquered this difficulty by this time. He also stated that he had "invented a method of controlling" his forces so that the machine will "keep on an even fore-and-aft keel" except when he wished it to ascend or descend to a certain level, and that this level once attained the airship would sail along, this plane with "entire horizontal stability". The method in which brought about this result, Whitehead was unwilling to tell the Reporter at the time, stating that he had not yet got his patent on the motor system which he used, which is the other feature of his machine which he believed put it in a higher class than any others which had been produced to date.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He showed that he had achieved aerodynamic stability to Dick Howell August 14, 1901, as he could let go of the controls and nr 21 continued straight ahead by itself. This was also told by Stanley Beach who said "Whitehead's airplane is aerodynamically stable and always lands flat, like a pancake." (The Wright brothers did not achieve aerodynamic stability anytime before 1915 or even later. Their models needed constant hands-on control by the pilots every tenth of a second to avoid a dive or a stall.)

What Binksternet seems to forget is the serious lack of money which hampered Whitehead. Once he managed to get a journalist from the local newspaper to come and witness a flight, but that was the most he could achieve to demonstrate his airplane to the press. Remember that the Wright brothers had big problems with getting anybody from the press to witness their first flights too, and they had a lot more money and connections with the press. Roger491127 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just like anybody else, Whitehead could have obtained his publicity for free, by telling people when and where he was going to be experimenting. Success would have been followed by quickly expanding word-of-mouth publicity, and a demand for more. Instead, he experimented largely in secret, to avoid "snap-shot" determinations of failure. Why do you think he was worried that witnesses would think him a failure? Take a wild guess.

Gibbs-Smith looked at all the available materials and determined that stability was not achieved, no matter what Whitehead said or what Beach said. We cannot go back in time to an earlier source to show that Gibbs-Smith was wrong in 1960. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We have at least two sources earlier than Gibbs-Smith in 1960. Dick Howell and Stanley Beach. If we study the affidavits of witnesses we might find more witnesses who talk about the aerodynamic stability of Whitehead's airplanes. Roger491127 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, we cannot take earlier sources to disprove later analysis. We must accept the later analysis with the proper authority depending on the source. By 1970, Gibbs-Smith has seen all the sources that were available, including all the affidavits, and he says Whitehead was telling falsehoods, reporting substantial untruths such as the supposed carbide or acetylene engine from '01 which "almost certainly never existed", according to Gibbs-Smith. (1970, Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II., pages 291–292.) Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1960 Gibbs-Smith text, again

I think it timely to refer back to the 1960 text from Gibbs-Smith that this article has as a negative ceiling, preventing any breakthrough in suddenly telling the world that Whitehead was better than sliced bread:

• Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6#From_the_Gibbs-Smith_book.

Cheers -

Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1959 Gibbs-Smith article

Gibbs-Smith wrote an article in 1959 which ran in Flight, volume 75, page 468. The article is called "Hops and Flights: A Roll Call of Early Powered Take-offs". He lists a bunch of early aviators and fakers. On page 469 he gives six lines of text to Whitehead:

1901–02. Gustave Whitehead (American). The claim that Whitehead started flying in 1901, and made a seven-mile flight over Long Island Sound in 1902, has been thoroughly investigated by the American authorities, and found to be a myth. It started with an apocryphal story in the Bridgeport Herald of August 18, 1901, and then flourished like the green bay-tree.

As far as I can tell, this is the first that Gibbs-Smith wrote about Whitehead. Later writings evolve from quoting other authorities to describing the results of his own research (1970). Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote from_the_Gibbs-Smith_book. It shows how he quotes Orville Wright, and all of us can see that all these arguments are faulty, from the fact that BSH was a weekly newspaper which was only published on Sundays to the statement that Whitehead could not build engines. His engines were so famous that his daughter could hardly carry all the orders for his motors from the mailbox, his motor was mentioned as a good choice by Chanute talking to the Wright brothers, and the Witteman brothers who started the first aviation factory in USA bought motors from Whitehead. And the Australian Lawrence Hargrave considered Whitehead as a genius in engine building. So Gibbs-Smith was wrong about everything. He simply copied, and accepted, the false arguments of Orville Wright which were adopted by the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers. And when it comes to the airworthiness of his airplane the witnesses from 1901 and the flights of replicas show that Whitehead knew a lot more about aerodynamic stability than the Wright brothers did considering the crash rate of their first 10 models and replicas of them. Other details from nr 21 which were decades ahead of the Wright brothers were the wheels, the ability to land on water and the ability to fold in the wings and use the airplane as a car. Roger491127 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And note that Whitehead's four flights August 14, 1901, the longest one and a half mile at a height of 200 feet, all ended with successful landings, without any damages to the airplane. As a contrast all four short hops of the Wright brothers in 1903 ended in "unintended landings" AKA crashes, and the last "landing" broke the front-mounted horizontal rudder. A few seconds later a gust of wind flipped Flyer 1 over and destroyed it completely. Roger491127 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger, your personal opinion means very little to the improvement of this article. Who are the giants of aviation history that have attacked Gibbs-Smith's version? Those are the people you should be quoting, not your own research. Gibbs-Smith examined the Stella Randolph work, the affidavits and more stuff we don't know, and determined that Whitehead's carbide/acetylene engine was a fiction, meaning his whole 1901 aircraft was false, since it relied on the notional engine. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision

I undid revision 473988634 by Roger491127 for several reasons:

• His replacement for the 2nd paragraph of the article's Introduction failed to give readers basic additional information about Whitehead's work and the attention Whitehead received while he was active. Instead, the paragraph jumped to a statement about the work of researchers and the effect of their research on the reputation of the Wright brothers. His 2nd sentence in the paragraph was clumsily written and gave information about Orville Wright, while giving no further information about the subject of the article--Gustave Whitehead. In sum, his entire 2nd paragraph of the Introduction gave no information whatever about Whitehead.

• He deleted a statement and its reference to a primary source, a controversial newspaper report, about the absence of a writer's byline on the report, which is an important source for claims about Whitehead's accomplishments.

• He also deleted a later statement about the lack of the byline in a section of this article specifically intended to give details about the newspaper report.

He has previously alleged that stating the newspaper report lacks a byline is Original Research, a claim which is explicitly refuted in the Wikipedia essay, "Identifying and using primary and secondary sources."

• In the article's Legacy section, he deleted a quotation and its reference which made a negative statement about Whitehead's reputation. This quotation was taken from the reliable, verifiable source, www.wright-brothers.org, which is cited in other parts of this article, including a citation of the exact same webpage from which the deleted quotation was sourced. The Legacy section is intended to describe the varying opinions about Whitehead among historians and researchers, amateur and professional, over the years. DonFB (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just rewrote the lead you complained about. Note that the utterance from Engler and Cmiel comes from a woodworker and an amateur historian. They have even said themselves that they are not real historians, they build model sized replicas of Wright brothers airplanes. And about the lack of a signature on the article by Howell in his article, you say you have seen that in the photocopy, but no outside secondary sources say anything about this, they simply say that Howell wrote the article and made the drawing. So mentioning that the article lacked a byline, like all articles in BSH in those days, is original research by you.Roger491127 (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Randolph and O'Dwyer were not "professional" historians; they were "amateurs". As usual, you're poorly informed: Engler and his crew built full-size replicas of all 3 Wright gliders and the kite. They are highly expert regarding the Wrights, as a good look at their website clearly shows. DonFB (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They are still not historians, according to their own statement, they call themselves "archeological experimenters" and the are certainly not experts on Whitehead and his flights, which this article is about. And I have never called Randolph and O'Dwyer "professional" historians, I call them researchers. Roger491127 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They have plenty of knowledge about Whitehead, as their website shows. Researcher fits them well also as a title. There is zero justification to delete their quotation, so please refrain from doing so again. Read the Wikipedia page I linked in the talk section "Revision". You can learn why your understanding of OR is incorrect and provides no justification to delete the article's statement about lack of a Herald byline. DonFB (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure Engler and Cmiel have built full scale replicas? I have studied their web site and the biggest models I have seen are scale models. One is a replica which they can take apart and assemble in a classroom of children. That would be impossible with a full scale replica. Note that their intended audience is school children.Roger491127 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They have flown them (piloted) near Kitty Hawk. It's a very big website; obviously you have not seen the relevant pages. DonFB (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have at least studied carefully their two pages about Whitehead, which consist of a reprint of Howells article from 1901, and the judgments of Orville Wright and the Smithsonian and Wright brothers biographers. And I have read the page were they say "We are not real historians, we are archeological experimentalists". Their judgment about what would happen if a photo of Whitehead in a flying motorized airplane would show up is highly hypothetical and irrelevant, especially considering their qualifications. And it is very likely totally wrong. If such a photo would be found it would change the views in the whole world about who first built and flew a working motorized airplane. Such a photo would be shown in all news media all around the world, because like me everybody in the world have been taught in school that the first successful flight of a motorized airplane in the world was made by the Wright brothers in 1903. It was not until I learned about Whitehead's flights and all the evidence supporting his flights that I realized that what I had learned in school was wrong. I have also learned in later years that the Wright brothers were not so successful as I had been given the impression of. Their first flights were rather unsuccessful hops in a very unstable machine, and their main contribution to the history was mainly negative, because their long patent war delayed and hindered the development of an aviation industry in USA with 10-15 years. All that were facts I never learned in school. Roger491127 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You have made these same comments innumerable times. I already know your opinions about early aviation, and they are irrelevant to neutral editing of this, or any, article. You also say that Randolph and O'Dwyer are not historians, so your double standard is showing. You're entitled to your opinions. The Wright website is entitled to theirs, and they have years of experience working in the field to back up their opinions. The GW article already cites the Wright website. Your mere opinions don't authorize you to pick and choose which citations from the same reliable source must be excluded from the article. Try to be neutral, rather than trying always to slant the article in GW's favor. It's annoying, a big waste of time and directly contrary, as you know, to the purpose of the encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a big waste of time to have Roger's logorrhea to deal with nearly every day, taking away precious time that could be used to build the encyclopedia. Roger needs to be limited in some fashion; he is disruptive to Wikipedia in his constant tilting at the same windmill. At least Tomticker brought an interesting new cite, the Cochrane work. I think it's time for Roger to have his editing style examined and subject to wider comment: RfC. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think so too. DonFB (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed section containing academic arguments

To prove that "I just want the article to present the evidence of both sides in a way which is as neutral as possible." I think it is a good idea to present the arguments of the "academic historian" with most clout, Gibbs-Smith, in the article. We can have a section with the arguments of the most reputable "academic historians" arguments, like this:

Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 207–208.

• Talk:Gustave_Whitehead/Archive_6#From_the_Gibbs-Smith_book

Roger491127 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, all the arguments from Gibbs-Smith will be responded to in other sections, or one section, by researchers which have responded to these arguments, but in that way we ensure that the best arguments from both sides are represented in the article, so the neutrality of the article is ensured. We can also include Orville Wrights arguments in the same section as Gibbs-Smiths arguments. Their arguments are basically the same, but that is good, showing the reader that the people who don't believe Whitehead ever flew agree with each other and use the same arguments to show that he and all who support him were probably a liars. Roger491127 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We can call this section with Gibbs-Smith's and Orville Wright's arguments The mainstream view. Then the reader himself can make his own judgment of the validity of the mainstream view and the views of O'Dwyer, Randolph, US Airforce. CAHA, Crane, Kosch, etc. Roger491127 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer to mention counter arguments throughout an article's text rather than trying to contain them all in one section, often called the Controversy section or similar. I especially would resist having a section with the purpose of presenting the arguments of the aviation scholars so that they can be picked apart by lesser observers. Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a "lesser observer" to pick these arguments apart. But you want the "academic mainstream" views to look superior so you don't have much to choose from. It is mainly you who have insisted that Gibbs-Smith is the most important representative of the mainstream view so it is just fair that his views are presented in detail. As a big heavy counterweight to all the arguments of US Airforce, CAHA, Randolph and all other researchers who hold the opposite view. Roger491127 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "...the views of O'Dwyer, Randolph, US Airforce. CAHA, Crane, Kosch, etc..." References currently in this article do not support a statement that the USAF or CAHA/New England Air Museum support claims for GW. I believe those organizations are officially neutral on the question. DonFB (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay about the USAF as a whole, but I think CAHA/New England Air Museum is Whitehead's side, but it doesn't matter. I suggested that we should have a section called The mainstream view and summarize Gibbs-Smith's arguments in it, and I doubt that Binksternet can deny that he has for years promoted Gibbs-Smith as the most important representative for the mainstream view. Gibbs-Smith's arguments are practically identical to the arguments Orville Wright presented in 1945, so we would cover practically all of the anti-Whitehead arguments by summarizing the arguments of Gibbs-Smith. This giant of academic aviation history was still alive at the end of the 1970s and had still found no reason to change his arguments from 1960 about Whitehead, so he covers all the time between 1945 and 1983 when he died. We could hardly find a better representative of the academic mainstream view. Roger491127 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wishful thinking at best. In 1969 Gibbs-Smith performed a year of in-depth research about all of the early aviators during his year as the Lindbergh Chair. In 1970 he published his results, based on a great variety of sources including Stella Randolph's book with its conflicting affidavits. Gibbs-Smith wrote down his new and original conclusions in his book, Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II, on pages 291–292. He was not impressed with Whitehead, who "discarded" the notional "acetylene wonder engine" of 1901 for his 1902 machine, who made extraordinary claims for substantial achievement in flight, the claims printed in major publications, but who "continued to work in comparative obscurity, building a variety of aircraft and engines with little success." Gibbs-Smith expects that any true flight success would have been accompanied by worldly success. Gibbs-Smith examined a copy of the Bridgeport Sunday Herald (he uses all three words in the name) and he wrote, "The account of the flight on 14 August 1901 in the Bridgeport Sunday Herald reads like a work of juvenile fiction..." One can hardly be more dismissive. Here's Gibbs-Smith riffing on Whitehead's lack of direction:

The acetylene wonder engine was discarded for the flights of January 1902: Whitehead stated that the aircraft used then was similar to his previous machine, but powered by a 40-hp five-cylinder engine fuelled by kerosene. Then both engines and the "successful" monoplane were abandoned, for his next aircraft was a triplane glider clearly based on Chanute's designs, to which he fitted a 12-hp two-cylinder kerosene engine with hot-bulb ignition. A single "flight" of 350 metres on this machine was reported in Scientific American of 19 September 1903. Then in December 1905 he applied for a patent, in partnership with Stanley Y. Beach, on a monoplane hang-glider quite different from any of his previous aircraft. This was built in 1906, with a four-wheeled open car underneath on which the pilot stood, and towed flights behind Beach's car were made. About the end of the year a three-cylinder 15-hp engine was fitted, but there are no reliable reports of flights. Then a large biplane with a 40-hp four-cylinder engine driving two out-rigged propellers was exhibited in unfinished state by the New York Aeronautic Society in November 1908, and failed to fly when tested in the following year; and finally Whitehead's last attempt to fly was a bizarre helicopter with 60 lifting screws in 1911–12. Such a career of retrogression from the successes of 1901 and 1902 is surely inexplicable; the simplest conclusion must be that those flights of ½ mile, 2 miles and 7½ miles were flights of fancy.

This is from the 2000 reprint of the 1970 work, page 287, ISBN 1900747529.

In summary, Gibbs-Smith takes us through ten or eleven years of Whitehead's powered aircraft production and concludes that all of the supposed flights were fiction. There is no coming back from this conclusion except at the very highest scholarly level, if another great historian were to say that Gibbs-Smith was wrong.

Roger, the reason I keep returning to Gibbs-Smith is because he is one of the few who bother with Whitehead at all. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, do you accept my suggestion to create a section describing the "mainstream view" using what Gibbs-Smith writes about the Whitehead August 14, 1901 flight(s)? What he says about other flights and time periods is of less importance and would make the section unnecessarily big. After all, the most important flight is the 800 m flight witnessed and described by Dick Howell. If Gibbs-Smith can discredit that flight using arguments the reader will accept the mainstream view will be accepted, and that would ensure the neutrality of this article, wouldn't it? Roger491127 (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. I do not think that corralling the negative mainstream stuff into one section is the right way to write the article. And you have it backwards: Dick Howell cannot be used to disprove the scholarly analysis from 1970. Binksternet (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So you don't want the reader to see the mainstream arguments, or what you call "the scholarly analysis from 1970" for what it is, a bunch of crap? Roger491127 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to work with what the reliable sources say, not what you think of the reliable source. The best way to introduce criticism of a viewpoint is to locate the arguments about it in another source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have as much fun as you want in your bunker of original research, but don't bring the party here. Wikipedia accepts the word of a senior aviation history scholar more than you think. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What I think of the mainstream arguments, or what you call "the scholarly analysis from 1970" doesn't matter. What matters is that those arguments should be presented to the reader, especially after those arguments have been referred to several times in the article as in "been dismissed by the academic mainstream" authors. If the the article refers so strongly to those sources, mainly Gibbs-Smith, we should let the reader read those arguments. In that way we are honest to the reader, and let the reader make his own judgment of the arguments of the both sides, and ensures that this article is neutral. Roger491127 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please make up your mind, Binksternet. The best source of criticism we have of the arguments from the pro-Whitehead side is what Gibbs-Smith writes about the Whitehead August 14, 1901 flight(s). That has been your position for several years. Roger491127 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Until today, the article did not contain any of the Gibbs-Smith work from 1969 to study early aviation even more deeply. I put the 1970 book in, and it has more than just criticism of 1901. Certainly, Gibbs-Smith's dismissal of the 1901 claim must be in the article, but any attempt to argue against it by using pre-1970 sources is a failing strategy. Gibbs-Smith looked at Dick Howell's contribution, at the various arguments from Randolph and others, at the affidavits and the newspaper articles, at the magazine articles, etc., etc., and he takes them all together in his analysis, the conclusion of which is that Whitehead never made the powered flights which appear in the various 1901–1906 stories. That conclusion undermines every argument you can find except for later ones that specifically name Gibbs-Smith and say that he was wrong. Find some of those latter type and you are in business. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have put into the article about what Orville Wright and Gibbs-Smith wrote are extremely selected parts which do not in any way show the reader what they really wrote. It is like writing that Hitler liked children and was kind to dogs and not mention anything else about what he did. You can not select arguments from Orville Wright and Gibbs-Smith in such a one-sided way. You have to give the reader the full picture, summarize their arguments, including incredible mistakes, stupid arguments, all of it, without selectively choosing a few points which are no real arguments at all, just opinions. Roger491127 (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger, let's revisit this when you have some expert aviation historian saying Gibbs-Smith was wrong. Until then... Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are dodging the issue. If we summarize the arguments of the "mainstream view" which we are referring to several times in this article we have to summarize the arguments as they were written, we can not leave anything out or add something. The truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth. For example the first arguments used by both Orville Wright and Gibbs-Smith, about the delay of four days to publish the news, and so on.. Roger491127 (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bridgeport Herald not Bridgeport Sunday Herald

The newspaper that reported the Aug 1901 manned powered flights was called the Bridgeport Herald. If you toggle to the front page of the copy inserted into the article, you'll see the front page of the paper. Apparently it had the largest circulation in the state. On the inside of the newspaper, it says; Sunday Herald on the top of the pages.Tomticker5 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think we should call the newspaper? Bridgeport Herald or Sunday Herald, or the compromise we have used so far, Bridgeport Sunday Herald? Roger491127 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper was called the Bridgeport Herald as its cover page would suggest. There was also a sister publication called the Waterbury Herald.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In his own words in 1902

Whitehead wrote an article that ran in the 26 January 1902 edition of the Bridgeport Herald. He mentions his partnership with Herman Linde, which lasted up to a week prior, the major problem facing aerial navigators (power and equilibrium) and chronicled all the heavier-than-air flights known to date of; Santos-Dumont, Maxim, Langley (who he was an assistant to), Herring, Lilienthal, Drouve [sic], Scanute [sic] (Chanute?) and his own flight in a "powerful machine" on 14 August 1901. He admits to the reader that to date, no one has been successful in building a "practical flying machine". But, he believed that by the St. Louis Exposition (1904), that someone will accomplish it. He stated; "a practical flying machine is an accomplished fact, and the man that accomplishes it deserves great honor, for he has overcome one of the most difficult of problems that the human mind has ever entertained". So, in his own words, he admits nothing more than he flew a powered machine (for a mile and a half) just like all the others had to date. I can't see how anyone would interpret his remarks as elevating himself to a higher plateau of aviation pioneers. At the time, 1902, he didn't seek credit for being the "first in flight" or even for building a "practical flying machine". Nickolai Sikorsky once told me that his father, Igor Sikorsky, never felt that he had "invented the helicopter". But, rather he believed that he invented the "first practical helicopter". Whitehead admits that he wasn't the "first to fly in a powered machine" or build a "practical flying machine". Why is he dismissed and rebuffed by modern aviation historians for his outrageous claims? I just don't see it.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. True, his language is modest, as it was in his flight-claim letters to American Inventor magazine. In those years there was much written about flying machines, as if they were accomplished fact but merely lacked sufficient practicality. So he makes no grandiose claims of being "first". And yet, he makes a claim for--by far--the most accomplished aviation feat thus far in history: "I myself flew in a powerful machine for more than a mile and a half, on August 14, 1901." You wrote that this feat was "just like all the others had to date," but that statement wildly exaggerates the achievements of "the others". I believe you intend the remark to serve as a justification that GW is not making such big claims, when, in fact, he is. GW's attitude looks like a strange combination of modesty and hubris. He seems well-versed in recent aeronautical progress, so it's difficult to understand why he would regard his own accomplishment with such modesty. It's also a little odd that his article did not include an update mentioning the even more spectacular flights of three and seven miles that he allegedly made over Long Island Sound only a little more than a week earlier, Jan. 17, 1902. Though he didn't mention that, his claim for Aug. 14, 1901 is, I believe, exactly what you denied: "elevating himself to a higher plateau of aviation pioneers"--even if his rhetoric does not match the significance of his claim. In short, his style of communication is subdued, but his claims are world-beating. Scholarly historians, it appears, focus more on his world-beating claims than his style of expressing them and judge him accordingly. I notice with amusement that he closes by slipping in a sly solicitation for financial support: "I believe that if ample means were forthcoming, not millions nor thousands, but enough for practical experiments, I could accomplish it myself." Take note, Gustave: the Wright brothers achieved the goal by spending the grand sum of about 1,000 dollars, by their own account.

I'm impressed that you're acquainted with Igor Sikorsky's son. This newspaper article was new to me. I wonder if any of the big name researchers--Randolph, O'Dwyer, Crouch, Howard, Gibbs-Smith--knew about it. DonFB (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are putting a spin to Whitehead's words which first of all are your own views, secondly, Whitehead didn't exaggerate if he really did make a flight for more than a mile and a half, on August 14, 1901, which is also supported by an eyewitness. He didn't suffer from hubris if he really had done what he wrote. I don't like any of the amateur psychology you engage in above and it should certainly not influence this article. Roger491127 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to add a note about two of your comments. First: "Langley (who he was an assistant to)". You seem to be confusing Langley with Lilienthal. At least one source claims that GW returned to Germany during his international sojourn period and studied under Lilienthal. That claim seems to be in dispute. But GW certainly never assisted Langley, according to everything I've seen. If he had, I'm sure it would be well-noted in many sources. Your other comment: "all the heavier-than-air flights known to date of: Santos-Dumont...." Santos made his first HTA flight in 1906, not prior to or during 1902. GW was referring to Santos' LTA flights. Accuracy counts. DonFB (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

http://aerofiles.com/_wh.html About nr 21, 1901: "A replica of this craft was built by Otto Timm, for the 1938 film, "Men With Wings," ...". This is a fact I didn't know about before. Obviously Whitehead was known by more than a few people in 1938. His airplane was even included in a movie in 1938. And the Smithsonian still didn't ask his family for his papers. .. "boxes and boxes of his papers were scrapped when his family sold the house and moved to Florida". And this must have happened after 1942, as the metal things he left behind were sent to support the war effort at the same time as his papers were scrapped. Roger491127 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)