Talk:Gustave Whitehead/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

links with other aviators

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

A suggested introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision #4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A suggested intro - part one and a half

Comments on Tomticker's #4 revision, above:

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

A Suggested Intro - Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Revision #6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Tom, et al -

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

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

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

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

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

Specific items

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DonFB,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarity in purpose

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

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

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

Image

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

Roger liked it :-) DonFB 11 June 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaks to intro 'agreement' text

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

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

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

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

Whitehead was a U.S. citizen by 1908

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor John J. Dvorak

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

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

Take a look at this webpage:

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

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

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

Geezus, you think Brown is forging Bridgeport Library letters and creating fictional personages to sign non-existent letters and putting it all online under his own name? God. Here's my suggestion. Go to Bridgeport and check it out. Let us know what you find. Meanwhile, try to dial down the suspicion of evil motives to a dull roar. DonFB (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph. The later "reversal" of Dvorak's opinion never happened—instead it was a gradual progression from optimism to disgust over the course of six months. Dvorak started out optimistic in August 1904. In October the local newspaper reported Dvorak saying nice things about Whitehead because Dvorak was still optimistic, and he had money on the line so he was partial. But with no results, and suspicions rising, Dvorak stopped his business relationship with Whitehead after six months which would be February 1905. In 1936, Dvorak swore his statement about Whitehead being incompetent and a dreamer who had delusions. That is the progression! There was no sudden reversal. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it, no sudden reversal. When I wrote the "reversal" text many moons ago, my intention was to explain that Dvorak started out as a booster and believer in Whitehead's "competence" (that's the word I used, not that Dvorak believed in GW flights, for example). Later, 30 years or six months--it doesn't much matter, I think--he had become a non-believer in GW's ability. That's a reversal of opinion. But I'm fine with the latest version of the text, as it explains accurately how the reversal, or "progression" if you prefer, came about. DonFB (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has it right... J. J. Dvorak (then was living in Chicago and at the time was a self-described "businessman") went to Bridgeport to have an engine built, and over the 6 months and a considerable amount of money spent, came to the realization that GW was "in capable" (sic) of doing the job, that GW was a "dreamer..." etc. etc. The original newspaper has disintegrated - it was bound and the paper had gone yellow and "friable" and so two photostats were made, one for O'Dwyer and one for the collection, but somehow both photostats ended up with O'Dwyer and it isn't clear that he ever returned the one to the collection, although D. Palmquist asked for its return. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB,

I swear it’s like you didn’t read a word that I wrote. I was not suggesting that “Brown is forging Bridgeport Library letters and creating fictional personages to sign non-existent letters and putting it all online under his own name”. I was saying that I accept the source that you provided as a reliable source to support the claim that Dvorak reversed his position. When I wrote that “David Palmquist” is mentioned in “Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” I was clearly indicating that he WAS a real person whose existence was corroborated by another source. You need to READ WHAT I WROTE before flying off the handle and assuming bad faith, especially when I was actually agreeing with you. Do try to avoid having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of your words which I read:

a newspaper which "cannot" (your scare quotes) be copied?

"appears to be a real person"? (my italics)

You took the trouble to research Palmquist, to make sure he really existed? Was there something in the Library letter reproduced on Brown's site that caused you to have doubts? Or is it something about Brown or his website that caused you to have doubts? Please share.

I understand that you accepted the source. You made a brave decision, overcoming your doubts. DonFB (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I know I should leave this alone, but I'll put my cards on the table, so you'll have a better understanding of our interactions. I don't know if the following words, which I believe you wrote, qualify as "flying off the handle," but they sure as heck display a certain pre-formed idea about the whole subject we're dealing with here:

"Many would argue that their [Jane's] recent endorsement of Whitehead has denigrated them to being a “trashy gossip rag” or a “purveyor of sensationalist bullshit.” The Jane's endorsement was major news in the Whitehead saga, and should fascinate anyone who wants to tell this story openly and fairly. Instead, you seemed to take it as some kind of personal insult, and that colored my opinion of everything you have to say here. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but it's obvious you came into this discussion with a pretty strong bias, which I regard as not likely to be helpful in improving the article. DonFB (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Palmquist letter is offered on page 215 of HBC, also. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I daresay that's where Brown got it. DonFB (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another reason to precisely state the endorsement of GW by "Jane's" - it was an editorial statement by the editor, who is not as of today, an aviation historian. Paul Jackson and John Brown know each other and have worked together, so this was not an objective anointment based on a reasoned review of evidence... that said I know that what most people see and hear is "'Jane's' believes GW flew before the Wrights." Unless we make it clear what this statement from Jane's is, we'll be feeding that misunderstanding. The statement from the "Jane's" editor reads, in part, "Also, making my decision even  easier: a replica of the Whitehead aircraft has been built in recent  years....and shown that it can fly." It's a victory for those advocating for GW, of sorts, but it is also - when considered to any extent - a strange conclusion based on nothing new at all. At least that's how I see it - plenty of room for others to state opinions. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I reaffirm my agreement that the GW article should not lead readers to believe that the source of the statement in Jane's is an aviation historian (on which I take you at your word), or that Jane's itself is a history publication. I think, though, that the statement you believe people are misunderstanding--that "Jane's believes GW flew before the Wrights"--is actually correct, insofar as the editor can be considered to be the "voice" of Jane's.

If Jackson can fairly be considered to be the voice of Jane's, it's not really a "misunderstanding" for people to presume that Jane's "believes" what Jackson said. It seems equivalent to the "belief" of a newspaper, like the NY Times, or Wall St Journal, when it publishes a "house editorial" on some subject or another. The distinction to be made, I believe, is not that there's a difference between what editor Jackson "believes" and what Jane's "believes," but rather, the distinction that neither Jackson nor Jane's are identified as specializing in the history of aviation--though I tend to believe that both the editor and staff of Jane's do, in fact, know a lot about aviation history.

I think the solution is the proposal you've already made--to identify Jane's as an "industry" publication. I've also agreed with the idea of specifying that the statement was an editorial, and I'm still ok with that. For practical purposes, though, I don't know that there's a real difference in saying any of the following: "Jane's believes", or "an editorial in Jane's said", or "the editor of Jane's said". I'm pretty sure the distinction is not one that readers would consider significant, and I can't say that I do either. If, on the other hand, we learned that the editorial board of Jane's (assuming there is one) has a different opinion, that would be significant and would be reason to be sure that the GW article explicitly states that the opinion is that of the editor, and not the publication.

In my last revision to the GW Intro on this subject, I did tweak the text to make it clear that Jackson's opinion was published in Jane's, a fact that does, I think, lend some organizational authority to the statement. It's not as if Jackson merely held a press conference or gave an interview; his opinion, as editor, ran in the pages of his highly-recognized and respected publication.

I agree that, as you said, Jane's conclusion is "based on nothing new at all". Of course, however, that's our opinion. If we editors want to include that point in the GW article, we'd need to cite a source to make it--Crouch, we know, did just that. DonFB (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

DonFB,

“Bridgeport's Socialist New Deal, 1915-36” mentions Palmquist in the beginning of the book, and acknowledges him as a “former archivist at the Bridgeport public library” thus corroborating that he is a real person. Palmquist also wrote “A Pictoral History of Bridgeport” in 1981. Palmquist is described as a “local historian” in the March 15th 1983 edition of The Day (New London). “The Titanic International Society” indicates that that Palmquist is the great nephew of Oscar Palmquist, a Titanic survivor who died under mysterious circumstances in 1925.

So yes, I did research Palmquist, and am satisfied that he did exist.

I cannot, however, account for your perception that my quotes are scary, nor for your perception that I am insinuating anything when I use the word “appears”. You appear to be reading a lot of your own personal feelings onto my words which seems highly indicative of a failure to assume good faith. Checking out sources to insure their reliability is an important part of responsible Wikipedia editing, and I don’t appreciate your criticizing me for doing so.

With regards to your accusation that I have a pretty strong bias; I’m allowed to. It’s just the article that’s not allowed to be bias.

That said, I’m glad I brought up Dvorak. Binksternet’s rewrite of the paragraph makes it seem a lot less “Dvorak turned on Whitehead” and a lot more “Whitehead failed Dvorak”. At least the article is improving despite our disagreements. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when an editor joins a conversation by profanely bad-mouthing a world-respected publication because he disagrees with its opinion on the subject of the article that's being edited. DonFB (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t bad-mouthed anyone. Jane’s bad-mouthed the Wrights.

If you don’t like my opinion then that’s tough crap. It is only my edits TO ARTICLES which Wikipedia says should be neutral. Now stop violating WP:FORUM. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we're offering opinions, here's mine (please skip the following if you wish), "Jane's" editor thought he was doing his buddy John Brown a favor, offering some support, and - just perhaps - didn't realize and hasn't yet realized what the "blow back" might be. It wouldn't surprise me to read a conciliatory editorial in the next volume. Besides, it is seen as good sport in some quarters to kick an elderly institution or a long held position... and in this case it has become a "Little Guy vs. The Big Academics" sort of theme - too compelling for some to ignore.

As for GW, my opinion is he made hops, he ran his self-described "automobile" up to speed, let the spring-loaded wings go into position, and was lifted up then skimmed along in ground effect for a bit then landed. In 1901-1908 many people would have seen that as flying. As for the Wrights, Wilbur made The First Flight, not Orville, yet there are compelling reasons why Orville's became known as The First Flight, yet it wasn't... it was uncontrolled. The machine didn't lack controls, but Orville lacked Wilbur's finesse, and the forward horizontal surface was not pivoted in the right place so the up and down motion could not be dampened. Wilbur was able to apply a light touch on the controls and managed his amazing last flight of the day, The Last Flight as well as The First Flight the 1903 Flyer would ever make under its own power.

As for the kerfuffle between editors, we can all be prickly, we can all misread, we can all over-react, let's move on and do some more productive work on this beast of an article. In my view the current crop of active editors is light-years ahead of some of the ones who were here a few years ago... just an opinion, you understand. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say this group of editors has a longggg way to go before you are on track with what has occurred in early aviation. I don't blame you, you simply didn't look in the right places, and it took many decades to put it all together. Stella Randolph a Whitehead activist? Such prejudicial comments. View some background info that Carroll et al will be interested in. http://historybycontract.org/, with regards to your desire for more information, view an earthshaking letter from Orville to William Hammer, hiring him. Dvorak did reverse his position. I have seen no evidence that he was in Bridgeport as a Professor then, mind you, who taught for a university elsewhere, for six months to have an engine built. That is nonsensical and unsupported. Also, the Beach statement was never published and never signed. It was initiated and heavily edited by Lester Gardner, who might as well have written it, by the time he was done. He did it to support the Wrights. Why should an unpublished statement that is unsigned be used at all? It was trumped up. The Contract emerged right after the flap about Whitehead. There is evidence that is one reason that Orville kept his plane in London longer. Research research. Opinions are worthless without it. AviationHist1 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I used reliable sources to tell the story of Dvorak being optimistic in mid-1904 but dismissive six months later. What sources do you have to the contrary? Not counting John Brown's blog. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Name your reliable sources. Mine are witnessed statements of eye-witnesses (who worked with Whitehead in the workdshop) who said Dvorak wanted to have a certain design that wouldn't work and that caused a stoppage. That he did not have mechanical ability. He was a Professor of Physics, by the way). So who are your reliable witnesses and was their statement witnessed? AviationHist1 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)